HD 


UC-NRLF 


./Y3/ 


7Mb 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Gl  FT    OF 


Class 


municipal  and  Private 
Operation  of  Public  Utilities 


RELATIVE  TO  THE  LABOR  REPORT 
OF  THE 

NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION 

Commission  on  Public  Ownership  and 
Operation 


By  J.  W.  SULLIVAN 

ONE  OF  THE  TWO   LABOR   INVESTIGATORS 


123    BIBLE    HOUSE 

NEW    YORK 

1908 


LETTER  TO  SAMUEL    GOMPERS. 

To  Samuel  Gompers,  President  American  Federation  of  Labor : 

Being  accountable  directly  to  you,  since  you  mainly  were  re- 
sponsible for  me,  in  the  municipal  ownership  inquiry,  I  address- 
these  pages  first  of  all  to  you. 

You,  as  the  .foremost  trade-union  official  of  the  labor  group 
in  the  National  Civic  Federation,  presided  at  the  conference  at 
which  I  was  made  a  member  of  the  Committee  of  Twenty-One  on 
Investigation  and  the  Labor  member  of  the  Committee  of  Five  on 
Plan  and  Scope.  Whether  or  not  you  named  me,  you  were  doubt- 
less consulted  before  I  was  placed  on  these  committees. 

Besides,  the  trials  of  comradeship  had  settled  in  you  some  confi- 
dence in  me.  On  being  informed  that  I  had  further  been  appointed 
one  of  the  two  investigators  of  labor  conditions,  you  wrote  me :  "I 
felt  that  no  man  in  my  wide  range  of  acquaintance  was  better  fitted 
than  you  to  undertake  a  thorough,  dispassionate,  and  impartial  in- 
vestigation and  to  report  the  results  as  you  found  them."  When 
you  thus  wrote  we  had  been  associated  in  the  labor  movement  half 
a  lifetime.  On  many  occasions  you  had  shown  that  you  placed  reli-- 
ance  on  me  in  serious  work.  You  yourself  nominated  me  at  a  con- 
vention of  the.  American  Federation  of  Labor  so  that  I  became  one- 
of  its  two  delegates  in  1896  to  the  British  Trade  Union  Congress 
at  Edinburgh.  Through  you  the  Executive  Council  made  me  Gen- 
eral Lecturer  on  Initiative  and  Referendum  in  the  years  1892-95. 
You  have  repeatedly  commended  my  writings  on  labor  subjects  dur- 
ing the  last  twenty-five  years,  appointed  me  on  leading  committees 
at  conventions  and  conferences,  and  have  invited  me  to  preside  at 
important  Labor  or  public  meetings.  Our  relations  have  invariably 
been  such  that,  whatever  our  differences  as  to  policies,  you  have 
never  ceased  for  a  day  to  manifest  your  expectation  that  on  under- 
taking a  task  I  would  end  it  with  a  report  satisfactory  at  least  in 
exhibiting  fair  endeavor. 

It  must,  then,  have  arrested  your  attention  when  you  read  in  my 
colleague's  review  his  strictures  on  the  character  of  my  work  while 
I  shared  his  duties.  You  could  only  have  felt  dissatisfied  thereaf- 
ter in  not  finding  anywhere  in  the  voluminous  reports  of  the  Com- 
mission any  reply  whatever  from  me  to  this  attack.  According  to 
my  fellow-investigator  I  had  in  my  review  done  what  to  him  was 
"impossible."  I  had  been  "one-sided" ;  I  had  given  "selected  facts" 
and  not  "all  the  facts" ;  I  had  "picked  out  sentences  here  and  there' r 
favorable  to  private  ownership  and  "discredited  the  sentences"  fa- 
vorable to  municipal  ownership;  I  had  not  taken  the  report  as  a 
whole,  with  the  facts  brought  together  in  their  true  proportions,  as 
he  had  done ;  his  contradictions  of  me  would  lead  the  reader  to  in- 
fer that  I  had  not  summarized  all  the  facts ;  I  had  perverted,  misin- 
terpreted and  vitiated  facts ;  I  was,  as  it  seemed,  also  to  be  argued 
against  as  being  among  "the  defenders  of  utility  corporations." 
And,  in  the  course  of  a  personal  explanation  made  "with  the  greatest 
reluctance,"  my  colleague  would  make  a  cipher  of  me  in  our  work 


174071 


2  LETTER   TO    SAMUEL   GOMPERS. 

by  asserting  that  he  wrote  our  "entire  report  as  it  stands,  except 
New  Haven  and  Philadelphia,"  on  the  basis  of  facts  which,  irrespec- 
tive of  me,  he  had  "personally  investigated/7 

Were  these  representations  exact,  Samuel  Gompers  might  well 
be  justified  in  calling  on  me  to  explain  why  in  this  important  mis- 
sion I  had  failed  to  be  thorough,  dispassionate  and  impartial.  He 
and  the  officials  of  international  unions  who  witnessed  with  appro- 
val my  appointment,  and  union  men  in  general,  have  a  right  to 
expect  me  to  disprove  what  my  colleague,  become  my  adversary,  has 
thus  alleged. 

I  herewith  give  my  reply.  I  would  print  it  for  my  own  peace 
of  mind  and  as  a  public  duty  even  if  it  were  not  actually  called  for 
by  any  one  interested.  I  want  to  be  clean  in  character  in  order  to 
be  useful.  I  will  not  permit  a  hostile  hand  to  exclude  me  from  the 
fields  I  have  selected  for  social  service.  I  intend  to  let  those  read- 
ers in  whose  minds  my  colleague  has  sown  the  seeds  of  distrust  have 
their  opportunity  to  judge  as  to  which  of  us  in  our  work  for  the 
Commission  did  his  best  to  bring  out  the  truth. 

But  I  am  by  no  means  inspired  to  write  what  I  do  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapters  solely  through  a  necessity  for  placing  myself  aright 
before  those  interested.  In  his  review,  Investigator  Commons,  in 
making  statements  concerning  the  private  agencies  of  public  ser- 
vice, has  gone  to  unwarranted  extremes.  Not  permitted  by  me  in 
such  cases  to  embody  his  partisan  notions  in  our  joint  report,  he 
was  able  to  put  them  forth  only  when  I  was  no  longer  on  hand  to 
check  him.  I  recognize  my  obligation  to  the  public  to  publish  evi- 
dences of  his  errors  in  these  respects  at  my  earliest  opportunity. 
And,  further,  the  circumstances  of  his  attack  on  me  justify  me  in 
looking  into  assertions  he  made  with  my  consent  in  our  joint  report 
on  his  own  unverified  inquiries.  Wherein  he  there  did  injustice  1 
make  amends. 

What  I  say  against  Investigator  Commons'  methods  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapters  has  been  forced  from  me.  Had  not  my  team-mate, 
alone  among  all  the  pairs  of  the  investigators,  so  far  forgotten  him- 
self in  my  absence  as  to  proceed  not  only  to  personalities,  but  to  an 
unbridled  license  of  misstatement,  I  would  have  continued  to  pass 
by  in  silence  much  of  what  I  must  now  relate.  The  publication  of 
this  rejoinder  and  the  impairment  of  standing  certain  to  result 
therefrom  to  John  R.  Commons  are  wholly  the  direct  consequences 
of  his  own  unwise  and  wrongful  acts. 

Yours  fraternally, 

J.  W   SULLIVAN". 


RELATIVE  TO  THE  LABOR  REPORT. 


DID  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS  WRITE  "THE  ENTIRE  RE- 
PORT AS  IT  STANDS?"  ETC.     HIS  COLLEAGUE'S 
SHARE    IN    THE    BRITISH    REPORT. 

I  take  up  first  Investigator  Commons'  partition  of  the  author- 
ship of  our  joint  report : 

"The  entire  report  as  it  stands,  except  New  Haven  and  Phil- 
adelphia," he  says  in  his  review,  (page  91,  Vol.  I,  and  same  page  in 
this  volume-),  "was  written  by  myself  on  the  basis  of  facts  which 
I  personally  investigated." 

To  begin  with  our  work  together  in  Great  Britain — two  chap- 
ters in  Part  II,  vol.  II,  "Eeports  of  Experts — United  Kingdom/' 
pages  1  to  112  and  550  to  627)  : 

When  Investigator  Commons  arrived  from  New  York  by  way 
of  Queenstown  at  Dublin,  June  1,  1906,  with  others  of  the  Commit- 
tee of  Twenty-One,  I  had  been  at  work  in  Great  Britain  three 
months.  He  and  I  were  thenceforth  at  our  investigations  in  Brit- 
ain together  nearly  eight  weeks.  At  the  end  of  that  time  he  had  ten 
days  to  go  back  over  our  route  alone,  taking  passage  then  for  Amer- 
ica from  Liverpool  in  the  first  week  of  August.  I  sailed  by  a  dif- 
ferent steamship  line  from  London  at  the  same  time.  I  had  been 
in  Great  Britain  five  months,  he  two  months. 

On  his  arrival  referred  to  in  Dublin  I  passed  over  to  Investi- 
gator Commons  literally  half  a  trunkful  of  written  and  printed 
matter  relating  to  our  labor  inquiry  which  I  myself  had  gathered. 
The  mass  of  it  was  made  up  of  the  filled-out  labor  schedules  from 
most  of  the  eighteen  British  undertakings  under  investigation  and 
printed  matter  relating  to  them,  such  as  annual  reports  for  several 
years,  pamphlets,  circulars,  newspaper  clippings.  Besides  were 
manuals  of  cities  to  be  visited,  letters  to  me  from  managers,  and 
books  and  documents  of  sundry  sorts  pertaining  to  our  mission. 
The  collection,  where  possible  classified  by  undertakings,  was  most- 
ly arranged  in  large  manila  envelope  pouches,  properly  labeled. 
While  I  had  gathered  some  of  it  through  correspondence  from  Lon- 
don, the  larger  part  I  had  received  from  the  hands  of  works  man- 
agers, councillors  and  labor  union  officials  of  the  cities  on  our  list. 
As  one  of  the  two  from  the  Committee  of  Five  representing  the  Com- 
mission in  Great  Britain,  I  had  in  March  and  April  visited  the  men 
in  control  of  the  undertakings  in  the  Provinces  and  obtained  their 
consent  to  have  their  plants  and  books  examined.  I  thus  visited  as 
pioneer  of  the  Commission  Birmingham,  Leicester,  Sheffield,  Man- 
chester, Liverpool,  Newcastle,  and  Glasgow.  In  each  of  these  cities, 
while  awaiting  appointments  with  managers  or  between  my  inter- 
views with  them,  I  called  untiringly,  day  and  evening,  on  other  men 
who  might  give  me  pertinent  labor  information.  I  had  introductory 
letters  everywhere  to  such  men ;  I  had  already  a  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  many  union  secretaries  and  other  labor  representatives, 
having  spent  three  weeks  at  Congress  time  at  Edinburgh  and  trav- 


4  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

eJed  another  four  weeks  among  unionists  in  Britain  in  1896.  Thus, 
no  stranger,  I  obtained  satisfactory  interviews.  In  London,  previous 
to  going  to  Dublin,  I  saw  the  President  of  the  Dublin  Tramways 
Company,  the  manager  of  the  Norwich  company  and  officials  of 
every  one  of  the  London  undertakings  we  were  to  visit.  Hence,  on 
meeting  me  in  Dublin,  Investigator  Commons  found  a  good  part — 
and  the  hardest  part — of  his  work  and  mine  as  labor  investigators 
in  the  field  done  for  every  one  of  the  undertakings.  Not  the  least 
helpful  was  that  I  had  ascertained  in  many  cases  which  labor  men 
that  we  were  to  meet  were  able,  and  which  not,  to  impart  to  us 
knowledge  from  their  experience.  In  our  travels  onward  on  our 
itinerary  from  Dublin  Investigator  Commons  had  therefore  usually 
but  to  follow  my  lead.  Pressed  for  time  as  we  were,  I  knew  the 
whereabouts  of  men  and  the  way  about  the  cities.  Not  being  de- 
tained in  making  groundwork  inquiries,  which  were  answered  in 
the  data  I  had  collected,  we  were  enabled  to  proceed  at  once  to  ad- 
vanced queries.  Councillors,  managers  and  others  interested,  pre- 
viously invited  through  Dr.  Maltbie  and  myself,  met  the  Twenty- 
One  in  the  various  cities,  and  in  not  a  few  instances  I  had  ascer- 
tained which  among  them  could  answer  queries  as  to  labor.  In  Lon- 
don my  assistance  to  Investigator  Commons  became  even  greater, 
as,  besides  knowing  the  city  itself  through  previous  visits,  I  had 
since  my  arrival  there  in  the  first  week  in  March  sp^nt  all  the  time 
possible  with  London  County  Councillors,  Labor  and  other  Eadical 
Members  of  Parliament,  editors,  and  men  prominent  in  gas.  tram- 
way, and  electricity  undertakings.  My  colleague  had  never  crossed 
the  ocean  before. 

Comparing  notes,  separating  the  chaff  from  the  grain,  to  some 
extent  summarizing,  "checking  up"  on  points  as  to  which  one  of  us 
might  have  more  information  than  the  other,  blocking  out  the  plan 
for  our  report — this  part  of  our  labors  immediately  preceded  our 
separation  in  London.  For  this  purpose  Investigator  Commons 
and  I  met  daily  for  two  weeks,  mostly  at  the  First  Avenue  Hotel, 
Holborn,  where  the  entire  corps  of  experts  were  going  over  their 
work.  Investigator  Commons  had  proposed  that  on  his  return  to 
his  home  in  Madison,  Wis.,  in  August,  he  should  write  out  the  first 
continuous  draft  of  our  joint  labor  report  for  Britain.  Consequent- 
ly, at  our  meetings  at  the  hotel,  while  deciding  on  points  to  be  in- 
corporated, a  considerable  part  of  our  work  was  taken  up  in  the 
discussion,  and  frequently  adoption,  of  the  results  of  my  own  ob- 
servations. I  had,  and  still  have,  a  pile  of  notebooks  containing 
hundreds  of  pages  of  pencil  notes  entered  from  day  to  day  in  the 
course  of  my  work.  My  colleague,  pen  in  hand,  as  we  talked,  fre- 
quently took  down  my  words  or  phrases,  which  now  appear  in  our 
joint  report.  In  these  discussions  I  gave  him  reasons  for  correcting 
not  a  few  of  his  impressions.  I  especially  directed  his  attention  to 
the  modification  among  its  intelligent  labor  supporters  in  Britain  of 
demands  for  further  municipal  ownership,  to  the  absence  of  forms 
of  co-operation,  or  profit-sharing,  in  municipal  undertakings,  to  the 
lack  of  identity  between  the  various  organizations  of  municipal  em- 
ployees with  true  trade  unionism,  and  to  the  fact  that  skilled  work- 
men get  from  municipal  employers  only  the  trade  union  enforced 
scale,  while  the  wages  of  the  unskilled,  who  are  mostly  men  of  one 
grade,  offer  no  true  basis  of  comparison  with  the  range  of  wages 


WHO  WROTE  THE  BRITISH  REPORT?  5 

paid  by  companies  to  men  of  many  grades.     To  a  greater  or  less 
extent  these  ideas  went  into  the  joint  report. 

Good  reasons  existed  why  one  of  us  only  should  baste  together 
a  draft  of  the  report  in  its  complete  verbal  dress.  We  could  not  each 
have  my  collection  of  documents  at  once,  now  supplemented  by 
further  collections  from  us  both.  It  would  have  proved  an  unnec- 
essary cost  and  a  silly  proceeding  for  each  of  us,  with  a  prospect  of 
differences  as  to  facts  to  be  sufficiently  indicated  in  paragraphs,  to 
duplicate  a  general  paraphrasing  of  reports  and  quotation  of  tables 
and  official  circulars  that  made  chapters.  As  to  mere  form  and  ar- 
rangement. Investigator  Commons  had  an  interest  not  affecting  me. 
The  investigation  was  to  me  an  episode ;  to  him  it  was  in  line  with 
his  vocation  and  livelihood.  He  had  a  career  as  investigator  to 
watch  over.  Conventionalities  of  college  or  government  report 
makers,  trifling  to  me,  might  look  large  to  him.  The  probabilities 
of  agreement  in  our  reading  of  the  facts  increased  with  him  as  the 
recorder,  since — considering  the  developments — I  could  afford  lib- 
eral concessions.  Besides,  he  told  me  he  intended  making  up  the 
manuscript  during  his  summer  holida}rs,  the  fructification  being  to 
him  an  extra  ten  dollars  per  diem. 

When  I  reached  Madison,  Oct.  1,  to  work  with  him  on  the  re- 
port, Investigator  Commons,  his  vacation  over,  had  much  of  our 
British  matter  in  manuscript.  Students  of  the  university  were  at 
work  on  the  wage  tables  for  the  construction  of  which  we  had 
planned  some  uniformity.  At  Madison  and  later  in  New  York,  I 
read  the  worked  over  typewritten  copies  of  the  manuscript  as  the 
parts  were  turned  out.  My  letters  from  my  colleague  at  this  time 
speak  of  my  doing  this  work.  When  in  type,  the  proof  sheets  were 
read  by  me.  In  these  processes  I  changed  words  and  sentences, 
added  here  and  omitted  there.  The  British  report  was  thus  our 
joint  production,  at  every  stage,  even  to  its  writing. 

1  know  of  no  whole  set  of  facts  in  this  part  of  the  report  that 
my  colleague  independently  investigated.  He  had  but  one  advan- 
tage of  men  in  our  work  in  Great  Britain — the  freemasonry  of  the 
Socialists  and  perfervid  municipalists.  From  these  sources — the 
two  being  much  the  same — he  drew  a  batch  of  stories  the  refutation 
of  which  I  print  herewith  in  subsequent  chapters.  He  never  ad-' 
vanced  the  British  labor  investigation  by  a  considerable  degree  on 
any  capital  point  except  "Suffrage,"  the  documentary  foundation 
for  which,  however,  he  obtained  in  part  from  my  trunk.  I  could 
sit  with  a  jury  and  point  out,  page  by  page,  throughout,  what  in 
the  report  is  from  my  notes,  the  printed  matter  I  collected,  the 
schedules  from  managers  or  the  interviews  at  which  both  of  us  were 
present.  The  interweavings  of  the  product  of  our  teamwork  could 
be  traced  by  the  contents  of  my  notebooks  or  documents  with  my 
marks  of  possession  on  them,  or  by  pieces  of  work  done  by  others 
under  my  direction.  For  example :  The  matter  in  small  type,  pages 
9  and  10,  Investigator  Commons  intended  printing  as  our  own  until 
I  wrote  its  introduction  and  gave  it  the  form  of  quotation.  The 
work  of  the  Citizens'  Union,  described  pages  14-16,  was  brought  to 
his  attention  by  me  and  another  member  of  the  Twenty-One,  and 
its  secretary,  at  our  invitation,  met  our  committee  as  a  body.  The 
Glasgow  Council  session,  described  pages  21-22,  was  attended  by  me 
when  I  Vi'as  in  Glasgow  alone,  and  the  notes  of  the  speeches  on  the 


6  THE     CIVIC     FEDERATION     LABOR     REPORT. 

occasion  printed  in  small  type  are  mine.  The  labored  attempt  to 
offset  charges  of  favoritism  in  appointments  made  at  that  session, 
down  to  page  27,  was  drawn  out  by  notes  taken  by  me  while  the 
heated  Councillors  wrangled.  The  quotations  relative  to  Glasgow 
employees,  pages  28-30,  came  largely  from  printed  reports  first  given 
to  me  personally.  The  interview  with  a  Leicester  Councillor  re- 
ferred to  on  page  33  was  mine.  The  matter  descriptive  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Employees'  Association,  pages  36-38,  I  had  obtained  from  its 
secretary  in  London  in  March  and  its  Scottish  District  Organizer  in 
Glasgow  in  April,  with  both  of  whom  I  had  several  interviews.  Tn 
the  compilations  on  pages  42-80  are  points  from  my  notebooks,  re- 
ports, etc.,  as  well  as  from  my  colleague's.  More  largely  Investiga- 
tor Commons'  than  any  other  part  of  our  joint  report  is  the  chapter 
"Profit-sharing  or  Copartnership/'  pages  82-102,  and  in  another 
chapter  I  deal  with  it  as  an  example  of  his  deliberate  bias.  The  re- 
plies to  the  schedule  questions,  pages  550  to  627,  were  compiled  by 
students  at  Madison  almost  wholly  from  schedule  books  filled  out 
by  me  or  through  me  at  the  works  investigated. 

At  this  point  I  invite  the  reader  to  pause  and  re-read  Investi- 
gator Commons'  averment  that  our  joint  report  and  investigation, 
except  New  Haven  and  Philadelphia,  were  his  personally.  That 
done,  I  ask :  What  was  the  reader's  impression  when  he  first  read 
that  assertion?  And  what  is  it  now?  If  his  impression  as  to  my 
share  in  the  British  work  remains  unchanged,  Investigator  Com- 
mons made  thereanent  a  truthful  statement. 

DID     INVESTIGATOR     COMMONS     WRITE     "THE    ENTIRE 

REPORT    AS    IT    STANDS?"      HIS     COLLEAGUE'S 

SHARE    IN    THE    AMERICAN    REPORT. 

We  come  now  to  the  joint  labor  report  on  the  American  under- 
takings— (four  chapters  in  Part  II,  vol.  I,  "Reports  of  Experts — 
United  States,"  pages  136-158,  "Waterworks";  490-536,  "Gas- 
works"; 749-758,  "Electricity  Supply";  885-897,  "Answers  to 
Schedules"). 

The  question  as  to  the  authorship  of  this  division  of  our  re- 
port does  not  turn  on  the  various  meanings  of  the  words  "written" 
in  Investigator  Commons'  sentence,  "The  entire  report  as  it  stands 
except  Xew  Haven  and  Philadelphia  was  written  by  myself,"  etc. 
A  rudimentary  conscience  might  be  satisfied  by  looking  at  his  word 
"written"  as  signifying,  in  reference  to  the  British  report,  spelling 
off  the  words  on  paper;  and  if  the  reader  should  happen  to  inter- 
pret the  word  as  meaning  authorship  in  all  its  drudgery  of  thought 
and  expression,  the  fault  might  be  found  in  the  defects  of  our  am- 
biguous vernacular. 

But  no  sophisms  as  to  the  faceted  uses  of  words  can  pass  as 
applied  to  the  American  report. 

I  wrote,  of  our  joint  American  chapters  on  labor,  as  printed, 
twenty-two  of  the  forty-nine  pages  of  the  text,  apart  from  Xew 
Haven  and  Philadelphia,  and  I  assisted  in  the  compilation  of  the 
tabular  matter  and  small  type  quotations.  To  particularize :  I 
wrote,  except  a  few  lines  in  each,  the  whole  of  the  sub-chapters  on 
Indianapolis,  Atlanta  and  Richmond,  and  considerable  passages  in 
those  on  Chicago,  South  Norwalk  and  Allegheny,  and  somewhat 
of  those  on  Cleveland  and  Wheeling.  For  proof,  1  hold  in  my  pos- 


WHO    WROTE    THE    AMERICAN    REPORT?  7 

session  my  original  manuscript,  which  I  saw  to  it  was  returned  to 
me  by  the  typewriter  in  Madison,  and  which  compares  with  the 
parts  I  mention  word  for  word,  except  eliminations  made  in  the 
typewritten  copy  by  Investigator  Commons.  The  answers  to  sched- 
ules I  wrote  entirely,  except  a  line  here  and  there  relating  to  Rich- 
mond. In  much  of  the  matter  not  thus  included  as  mine  appear 
sentences  or  parts  of  paragraphs  just  as  they  were  written  by  me 
before  Investigator  Commons  worked  over  portions  of  my  draft 
to  inject  in  it  his  own  personal  investigations  of  political  conditions 
cutside  the  purview  of  our  schedules  after  I  had  quit  the  field. 

Six  weeks  after  my  return  in  August  from  London,  having 
alone  meantime  visited  South  Norwalk,  Syracuse,  Allegheny, 
Wheeling,  Cleveland,  Detroit,  Indianapolis,  and  Chicago,  I  went  to 
Madison,  Wis.,  where  Investigator  Commons  had  been  detained  at 
the  university,  and  during  my  stay  there  of  more  than  three  weeks 
I  wrote  150  large  pages  (at  least  15,000  words)  as  a  first  draft  for 
our  American  report,  from  which  we  might  select  what  should  be 
approved  by  both.  To  Investigator  Commons  I  gave  a  typewritten 
copy  of  this  matter,  which  he  has  come  to  speak  of  as  of  his  own 
composition. 

The  final  editorial  reading  of  the  American  report  was  mine, 
as  may  be  seen  by  my  marks  on  -the  proof  sheets,  which  I  have. 

The  reader  has  here  before  him  a  case  of  point  blank  assertion 
and  counter-assertion  as  to  fathership  of  the  joint  labor  report 
which  needs  no  sword  of  Solomon  to  settle.  No  one  need  re-read 
often  or  ponder  long  my  contradiction  on  this  point  to  weigh 
whether  or  not  I  have  convicted  Investigator  Commons  of  down- 
right  falsehood. 

And  there  was  much  of  his  work  for  the  Commission  in  which 
his  moral  dereliction  was  just  as  flagrant  and  shameless.  Of  this 
further  charge,  I  produce  the  proofs  in  coming  pages. 

"THE  ABSENT  ARE   IN   THE  WRONG." 

How  is  it  that  I  have  not  hitherto  come  forward  to  contradict 
the  amazing  misstatements  of  Investigator  Commons?  Why  did  I 
not  confront  him  at  the  meeting  of  the  Twenty-One  on  June  10r 
1907? 

On  April  3,  1907,  I  sailed  from  New  York  for  Europe,  to  1)6 
gone  a  ye-ir,  or  perhaps  two  years.  I  remained  abroad  thirteen 
months.  By  a  series  of  events  beyond  my  control  I  was  kept  in 
ignorance  of  the  fact  that  my  colleague  Commons  had  turned  upon 
me  until  long  after  the  Twenty-One  had  had  their  meeting  and  all 
the  reports  had  been  made  public.  To  set  out  giving  a  detailed  and 
convincing  correction  of  Investigator  Commons'  deviations  from 
the  plain  facts  was  not  possible  until  my  recent  return,  my  papers 
relating  to  our  work  in  common  being  in  New  York. 

When  I  left  for  Europe  it  was  with'  the  feeling  that  all  was 
well  with  my  Civic  Federation  duties.  They  were  over  and  I  wa& 
relieved.  The  Manager  had  expressed,  verbally  and  in  writing,  only 
satisfaction  at  my  course.  The  Chairman  of  the  Five,  my  colleagues 
of  that  committee,  and  the  Chairman  of  the  Twenty-One — with  alt 
these  gentlemen  I  was  on  excellent  terms.  My  sole  regret  was  that 
I  could  not  continue  waiting  indefinitely,  as  I  had  during  months 
waited,  for  the  final  meeting  of  the  Twenty-One,  when  the  general 
report  was  to  be  adopted. 


8  THE     CIVIC     FEDERATION     LABOR     REPORT. 

I  had  the  week  before  sent  Investigator  Commons  the  man- 
uscript of  my  own  review  of  our  joint  report.  I  was  not  sensible 
of  giving  him  just  cause  for  offense  in  anything  I  had  therein  writ- 
ten. He  had  been  made  aware  of  our  special  differences  in  views, 
-cither  as  they  had  been  developed  during  our  investigations  or  while 
we  were  discussing  them  afterward.  I  had  so  frequently  respected 
his  wishes  in  minor  matters,  such  as  phraseology  or  arrangement,  in 
our  report  that  I  took  it  for  granted  he  would  continue  to  proffer 
freely  any  suggestions  tending  to  end  our  work  in  harmony,  if  not 
in  unity.  A  remonstrance  as  to  the  paragraph  on  his  practical  pol- 
iticians would  have  received  my  earnest  attention.  So  I  went  away 
looking  forward  to  having  his  comments  on  my  review  in  a  few 
weeks.  And  a  copy  of  his  own  review  of  our  joint  report,  I  felt 
certain,  would  soon  follow. 

In  truth,  as  to  this  last-named  expectation,  no  doubt  ever  en- 
tered my  mind.  Sundry  of  Investigator  Commons'  doings  had 
more  or  less  at  times  disturbed  my  confidence  in  him.  But  every 
man  of  all  the  pairs  of  investigators  in  our  corps,  both  Americans 
and  British,  had  assented  to  an  agreement  not  to  publish  anything, 
nor  even  to  submit  anything  to  the  Twenty-One,  until  his  colleague 
had  read  what  he  had  written  and  the  two  had  tried  to  come  to- 
gether in  case  of  difference.  The  good  features  of  this  pact  were  re- 
ferred to  daily  among  the  investigators  while  working  at  the  Lon- 
don hotel.  By  discussing  each  other's  writings  a  single  joint  report 
in  each  case  might  be  arrived  at,  crudities  might  be  cleared  a\vay, 
errors  corrected,  omissions  prevented.  And  in  case  of  divergent  re- 
ports language  offensive  to  either  side  could  be  avoided.  I  had  seen 
our  experts  at  work  striving  for  the  happy  term  clothing  the  idea 
of  each;  I  had  read  lists  of  corrections  one  had  made  out  for  an- 
other; I  was  witness  to  a  consequent  emulation  in  carrying  out  our 
good  resolve.  This  manly  endeavor  for  concord  and  exact  truth 
was  to  help  lift  the  reports  to  a  high  plane.  To  the  very  finishing 
touch  of  his  task  even-  one  concerned  observed  his  contract  with  his 
colleague  except  Investigator  Commons.  I  never  received  word 
from  him  after  I  sailed  from  Xew  York,  except  that  on  May  13  Dr. 
Maltbie  wrote  me :  Investigator  Commons  "says  that  he  will  send 
you  a  carbon  copy  immediately  after  it  is  finished."  He  has  now 
"known  for  nearly  a  year  that  I  hold  him  as  a  violator  of  his  word, 
iind  he  has  given  no  explanation. 

The  first  copy  I  saw  of  Investigator  Commons'  attack  on  me 
reached  me  September  1.  The  Committee  of  Twenty-One  had  met 
^nd  adopted  its  report  June  10.  Proof  copies  of  the  various  reports 
had  previously  been  mailed  to  the  members  of  the  Twenty-One  from 
Dr.  Maltbie's  office  by  a  secretary  or  an  assistant.  I  received  all  of 
them,  through  my  permanent  European  address,  except  Investiga- 
tor Commons'  review.  This  may  have  been  sent,  by  mistake  in  the 
editor's  office,  to  the  Clothing  Trades  Bulletin,  to  be  mingled  with 
its  hundreds  of  exchanges,  sometimes  opened  regardless  of  the  ad- 
dress, or  by  accident  it  may  never  have  been  mailed  me  at  all. 

A  New  York  friend  sent  me  in  July  a  newspaper  clipping,  in 
which  occurred  the  "personal  explanation"  directed  against  me 
'"with  the  greatest' reluctance"  by  Investigator  Commons.  I  was  as- 
tounded when  I  read  it.  I  at  once  sent  the  Civic  Federation  Mana- 
ger a  statement  as  to  the  points  raised,  which  later  I  withdrew  while 


THE    FATE    OF    THE    ABSENT.  9 

awaiting  a  complete  copy  of  Investigator  Commons'  article  or  news 
of  his  elimination  of  the  personalities  directed  against  me.  I  wrote 
a  request  that  a  letter  be  inserted  somewhere  in  the  forthcoming 
volumes  of  the  reports,  saying  that  I  promised  yet  to  reply.  When 
this  request  reached  the  editor  the  forms  containing  the  labor  re- 
views had  been  printed. 

Thus,  circumstances  beyond  me,  one  with  another,  contributed 
iu  giving  my  one-time  colleague  a  free  field  in  which  to  parade  his 
virtues  as  investigator,  while  I  was  far  away,  uninformed. 

Had  I  received  Investigator  Commons'  review  in  time  I  would 
have  re-crossed  the  ocean  to  expose  him  before  the  Twenty-One  and 
the  public. 

But,  what  is  more  to  the  point  now,  I  should  also  without  ques- 
tion have  been  obliged  to  withdraw  my  signature  from  whatever 
passages  of  our  joint  report  were  entirely  of  his  authorship.  Having 
violated  his  contract  to  put  me  before  any  one  else  in  possession  of 
his  review,  as  I  had  put  him  in  possession  of  mine,  he  could  no 
longer  expect  me  to  accept  any  of  his  statements  not  verified  by  my- 
self. My  signature  being  thus  contingent  on  his  acting  in  good  faith, 
my  right  to  withdraw  it  was  vested  in  me  up  to  the  moment  that, 
all  observances  of  our  agreement  being  respected  and  both  parties 
satisfied,  our  joint  report  and  separate  reviews  should  go  to  the  pub- 
lic. And  now  that  he  broke  that  agreement  in  my  absence  it  would 
be  an  imbecility  to  assume  that  it  is  still  binding  on  me. 

I  have  therefore  within  the  last  few  months  gone  to  his  origi- 
nal sources  and — to  employ  one  of  the  phrases  of  his  professional 
patter — "checked  up"  some  of  his  grosser  misrepresentations,  not 
only  in  his  review,  but  in  those  parts  of  the  joint  report  in  which 
I  had  accepted  his  word  as  fact,  and  I  now  give  the  truth  regarding 
them  as  I  proceed. 

HOW   INVESTIGATOR   COMMONS   DELIBERATELY   FALSL 
FIED    VITAL    FACTS. 

Investigator  Commons,  in  his  review,  makes  statements  respect- 
ing crucial  points  that  are  in  direct  variance  with  the  truth  as  he 
in  some  cases  ascertained  it,  or  in  other  cases  could  have  ascertained 
it  by  going  to  the  proper  sources.  Following  are  striking  instances : 

I. 

Page  90,  speaking  of  Glasgow:  "In  the  midst  of  this  socialistic 
tide,  two  anti-municipal  ownership  associations  were  organized — 
the  Citizens'  Union  and  The  Bate-Payers'  Federation.  They  started 
an  active  agitation,  and,  along  with  other  influences,  the  tide  of  mu- 
nicipalization  has  been  checked  or  stopped.  We  were  led  to  believe 
that  from  these  two  associations  we  could  secure  information  that 
would  correct  the  universal  indorsement  of  municipal  ownership 
found  elsewhere  in  Glasgow,  but  were  surprised  to  find  that  both 
associations  indorsed  all  that  had  been  done  in  municipalizing  tram- 
ways, electricity,  gas,  and  water.  They  onh*  opposed  the  municipal- 
ization  of  other  undertakings  competitive  in  character.  No  more 
conclusive  indorsement  of  the  success  of  municipal  ownership  in 
Glasgow  could  have  been  brought  to  our  attention,"  etc. 

This  tardy  "indorsement,"'  sure  to  come  from  converted  an- 
tagonists, has  long  been  an  alluring  idea  with  Municipalists  and 
Socialists.  Despite  itself  the  opposition  is  to  be  won  over  every- 


10  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

where  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  communistic  successes  achieved.  In- 
vestigator Commons  wished  to  make  this  point  for  Glasgow  in  our 
joint  report,  but  I  asked  him  to  produce  his  evidence.  He  spoke  of 
the  notes  of  the  stenographer  at  the  meeting  between  the  Glasgow 
anti-municipal  representatives  and  our  Commission,  as  well  as  of 
the  minutes  of  the  Twenty-One's  secretary,  but  he  never  produced 
his  desired  testimony.  Next  he  introduced  this  "indorsement"  in  an 
instalment  of  a  proposed  joint  summary,  as  he  termed  it,  which  he 
sent  to  me  in  New  York  from  M'adison.  I  marked  out  the  word 
"indorsed"  in  the  places  it  occurred  and  substituted  "acquiesced." 
He  dissented.  On  several  such  differences  we  gave  up  the  project 
of  a  joint  review.  Not  one  member  of  the  Glasgow  Citizens'  Union 
or  Rate-Payers'  Federation  "indorsed"  to  us  the  municipalization 
of  the  city's  gas,  electricity  or  tramways.  Secretary  Robert  Bird,  as 
the  spokesman,  and  other  members  of  the  Citizens'  Union  and  the 
Federation,  met  members  of  our  Commission  at  the  Central  Hotel 
in  Glasgow,  June  4.  My  own  notes  are  the  fullest  that  exist  regard- 
ing this  meeting.  In  explaining  the  purpose  of  the  two  organiza- 
tions, Secretary  Bird  dwelt  on  their  opposition,  in  theory  and  prac- 
tice, to  the  municipal  telephone,  now  defunct,  to  the  unnecessary 
municipal  housing  scheme  that  had  cost  £750,000,  while  private 
capital  could  have  done  better  work  at  a  lower  social  cost,  to  mis- 
applications of  the  Common  Good  fund,  and  to  the  numerous  muni- 
cipal ventures  fostered  by  Socialists  and  municipal  communists. 
When  asked  as  to  gas,  tramways  and  electricity,  Secretary  Bird  said 
his  two  organizations  were  not  actually  opposing  them,  but  accept- 
ing them  as  they  stood,  were  opposing  extensions  "on  their  fringe" 
that  entered  upon  legitimate  competitive  fields.  The  gas  undertak- 
ing should  not  deal  in  gas  stoves  and  gasoliers,  the  electricity  depart- 
ment in  fittings  and  the  like.  When  the  tramways  department  set 
out  in  1903  to  make  extensions  in  the  surrounding  country  districts 
the  Rate-Payers'  Federation  compelled  it  to  give  service  first  to 
sections  of  the  city  "that  were  crying  for  it,"  and  the  same  body  of 
citizens  endeavored  to  prevent  the  cost  of  street  alterations  or  re- 
pairs made  plainly  for  the  benefit  of  the  tramways  from  being 
charged  to  the  city  treasury  in  general.  Such  statements  as  these 
were  construed  by  Investigator  Commons  as  his  sought-for  con- 
clusive "indorsement"  of  the  municipal  operation  of  the  three  utili- 
ties in  question.  But  if  he  had  pursued  the  subject  further,  as  did 
others  of  the  Commission  at  the  time,  he  would  have  seen  clearly 
that  the  Citizens'  Union  was  fighting  the  whole  municipalization 
programme. 

I  interviewed  last  April  on  this  subject  Mr.  Arthur  Kay,  who, 
as  all  Glasgow  knows,  is  the  leader  in  both  the  Citizens'  Union  and 
the  Rate-Payers'  Federation.  He  said :  "Mr.  Commons'  statement 
as  to  this  indorsement  of  ours  is  totally  incorrect.  We  merely  ac- 
cept these  existing  municipal  undertakings  he  mentions  as  'fails 
accomplish  As  you  put  it,  we  acquiesce  in  what  is  not  a  live  issue, 
just  as  we  live  under  imperial  laws  of  a  century's  standing  which 
just  at  present  are  beyond  correction  in  practical  life.  The  mem- 
bers of  our  two  organizations  believe  our  tramways  would  be  more 
justly — as  regards  other  traffic — and  better  administered  by  a  com- 
panv  holding  a  license  from  the  Corporation  than  by  the  Corpora- 
tion itself;  and  if  the  Electric  Light  and  Power  undertaking  had 


CRUCIAL  FACTS.  11 

been  worked  with  the  Electric  Tramway  undertaking,  both  under 
license  from  the  Corporation  [municipality]  experts  agree  that  the 
result  would  have  been  more  efficiency  and  less  cost.  The  cleanli- 
ness and  efficiency  of  our  tramway  system  in  Glasgow  do  not  seem 
to  me  in  any  way  to  excel  those  of  the  privately  owned  tubes  in 
London." 

At  a  meeting  of  tramway  committeemen  of  the  Glasgow  City 
Council  and  the  tramway  manager  with  our  Commission,  June  5r 
Bailie  Alexander,  chairman  of  the  committee,  said:  "The  Town 
Council  is  now  agreed  that  the  electricity  for  both  departments 
should  have  been  operated  under  one  authority.  There  ought  to 
have  been  one  central  control." 

The  municipalization  movement  was  not  "universally  in- 
dorsed" in  Glasgow  even  by  the  radical  parties.  John  Paul,  rep- 
resenting the  League  for  the  Taxation  of  Land  Values,  a  strong 
and  active  organization,  said  to  me  in  an  interview,  the  notes  of 
which  I  gave  to  Investigator  Commons:  "All  done,  what's  done? 
There's  as  much  poverty  in  Glasgow  as  ever.  The  Social  Democrat- 
ic Federation,  at  a  meeting  here  ten  years  ago,  upheld  our  munici- 
palization. But  now  it  calls  the  movement  municipal  capitalism." 
A  member  of  the  League,  for  a  decade  a  city  councillor,  told  me 
he  withdrew  his  support  of  municipalization,  as  its  results  were  not 
socially  good.  Among  other  points  he  made  was  that  the  15,000 
city  employees  of  Glasgow,  working  for  their  own  ends,  constituted 
a  menace  to  good  government  on  broad  lines. 

In  this  instance  Investigator  Commons,  contradicting  me,  pub- 
lished to  American  readers  as  truth  the  very  reverse  of  the  truth. 

II. 

It  seemed  to  myself  and  several  other  members  of  the  Com- 
mission that  the  rise  in  Great  Britain  of  the  Municipal  Emplo}'ees' 
Association,  as  well  as  other  unions  made  up  of  municipal  employees, 
was  significant  as  a  growing  public  danger  in  connection  with  the 
development  of  municipal  operation.  As  I  have  said,  on  his  arri- 
val I  had  ready  for  Investigator  Commons  the  data  relative  to  this 
"spurious  union,"  much  of  which  he  used  in  our  joint  report.  He 
paid  full  attention  to  this  aspect  of  municipalism,  and  was  anx- 
iously interested  in  the  action  of  the  Trade  Union  Congress  of  1906, 
which  passed  a  resolution  threatening  to  exclude  organizations  made 
up  of  municipal  employees  in  mingled  occupations  from  the  sup- 
port of  the  trade  unions.  In  his  review  (pages  98-99),  he  sketches 
the  progress  of  the  association,  and  after  mentioning  this  action  of 
the  union  congress,  says:  "Without  the  support  of  the  regular 
unions  the  strength  of  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association  has 
disappeared.  It  was  a  temporary  phase  of  the  rapid  increase  of 
municipal  ownership." 

In  April,  1908,  I  showed  this  paragraph  to  Richard  Davies,  the 
present  general  secretary  of  the  Association,  in  its  new  central  of- 
fices in  London.  He  said,  as  to  the  disappearance  of  his  organiza- 
tion's strength:  "This  is  far  from  an  accurate  statement.  We  have 
never  lost  a  single  member  by  this  action  in  the  trade  union  con- 
gress. We  have  now  15,000  members  against  13,000  two  years  ag\ 
Here  are  our  reports  for  1907,  in  comparison  with  those  for  1906, 
which  show  an  improvement  in  our  finances.  As  all  the  organized 


12  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

workingmen  of  this  country  know,  we  have  had  serious  internal 
troubles,  resulting  in  ousting  the  former  General  Secretary,  who  has 
since  started  another  organization  among  municipal  employees.  Nev- 
ertheless, our  present  reports,  which  are  revised  by  chartered  ac- 
countants and  are  therefore  correct,  show  that  our  income  for  1907 
was  more  than  £850  in  excess  of  expenditures,  which  is  better  than 
the  year  before.  We  do  not  interfere  with  the  unions  of  skilled 
tradesmen,  but  urge  workmen  of  the  trades  employed  by  munici- 
palities to  go  into  the  unions  of  their  trades.  Hence,  really  a  con- 
siderable membership  of  such  unions,  and  in  places  almost  whole 
organizations,  while  not  connected  with  the  Municipal  Employees* 
Associations,  are  municipal  employees  organized  to  promote  our 
principle  of  benefiting  themselves  through  their  votes.  For  exam- 
ple, Mr.  Commons,  in  mentioning  (pages  41  and  49)  other  unions 
made  up  mainly  of  municipal  employees,  says  that  six-sevenths  of 
the  members  of  the  Tramway  and  Vehicle  Workers'  Union  in  the 
Kingdom  are  in  municipal  employment.  Thus  the  municipal  em- 
ployees in  all  other  forms  of  organization  are  numerically  stronger 
than  is  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association  itself.  We  are  get- 
ting men  in  the  tramways  departments  not  reached  by  the  Tram- 
way and  Vehicle  Workers.  Here  is  the  financial  statement  for 
March,  1908,  of  one  of  our  tramway  branches  in  Manchester,  which 
lias  430  members,  and  we  have  four  branches  in  Salford-Manches- 
ter.  Of  the  laborers  in  municipal  employment,  nine  out  of  ten 
belong  to  no  trade — sewermen,  scavengers,  street  sweepers.  The 
unskilled  trade  unions  have  never  got  these  men,  and  we  are  get- 
ting them.  The  joint  board  of  unions  and  the  Labor  Party  have 
given  members  of  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association  until  May 
1,  1910,  to  assimilate  in  national  unions  represented  in  the  Trade 
Union  Congress.  Changes  which  we  have  made  in  our  rules  for 
organization  may  set  aside  the  present  apparent  differences  be- 
tween us  and  the  unions,  which  meantime  have  not  attacked  us. 
The  fact  is,  the  unskilled  municipal  employees  will  not  organize 
in  the  outside  unskilled  unions,  such  as  the  gas  workers  and  dockers, 
who,  with  several  other  national  unskilled  workers,  have  added  to 
their  titles  "and  General  Laborers'  Union,"  and  are  open  to  all 
non-tradesmen.  I  look  for  a  federation  of  government  workmen 
and  municipal  employees.  Commissioner  Commons  failed  to  under- 
stand the  situation  as  it  is  regarding  our  organization  and  made 
an  unfounded  statement  as  to  the  disappearance  of  our  strength. 
We  have  as  much  influence  now  on  the  election  of  Councilmen  as 
we  ever  had,  and  it  is  growing.  We  contribute  money  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Councillors  favorable  to  us." 

I  asked  in  1906  many  observers  of  public  movements  in  Great 
Britain  about  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association.  The  usual 
reply  was  that  its  possibilities  had  not  yet  been  demonstrated;  no 
man  had  yet  come  to  the  front  in  the  organization  who  had  shown 
the  capacity  necessary  for  a  national  leader.  Secretary  Davies, 
who  has  had  experience  as  a  Leicester  Town  Councillor,  now  gives 
promise  of  being  the  man  for  the  occasion. 

On  this  question  again  Investigator  Commons  wrote  as  a  fact 
what  he  wanted  to  be  a  fact  but  was  demonstrably  contrary  to  the 
fact.  That  municipal  employees,  whether  teachers  or  tramway  men, 
policemen  or  public  building  janitors,  clerks  or  laborers,  will  enter 


THE    MUNICIPAL    EMPLOYEES.  13 

into  alliances  for  their  own  purposes,  so  far  from  being  a  "tempo- 
rary phase"  of  increasing  municipalization,  may  be  reckoned  on 
as  a  fact  as  well  settled  as  office  seeking.  The  only  move  made  by 
the  Trades  Union  Congress  against  the  Municipal  Employees'  Asso- 
ciation was  passing  an  indefinite  resolution,  never  acted  on,  except 
in  the  way  of  negotiations,  which  are  pending  until  May  1,  1910. 

III. 

In  his  review  (page  102)  Investigator  Commons  alleges  that 
in  Newcastle,  one  of  the  places  visited  by  our  Commission,  where 
private  companies  operate  some  of  the  public  utilities,  the  Munici- 
pal Council  is  "decidedly  inferior  in  quality  and  ability  to  others." 
His  judgment  of  the  Council  of  Sheffield,  where  the  gas  is  supplied 
by  a  company,  is  equally  characterized  by  antipathy.  The  reckless- 
ness of  such  opinions  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  Investiga- 
tor Commons  spent,  all  told,  less  than  one  week  in  these  two  citieb 
together.  Of  Newcastle  he  says :  "An  equivocal  class  of  labor  agi- 
tators takes  advantage  of  the  situation  to  get  elected  to  the  Coun- 
cil." Of  Sheffield  he  has  this:  "In  that  town  there  is  a  peculiar 
inducement  for  the  eminent  business  men  in  charge  of  the  gas  com- 
pany to  look  with  approval  on  the  election  of  inferior  Councillors, 
because  the  Council  elects  three  of  its  members  as  directors  of  the 
company.  The  strength  of  the  company  is  seen  in  the  incompetency 
of  these  municipal  directors,  who  are  kept  in  ignorance  of  essen- 
tial details  of  its  affairs.  With  Councillors  of  this  inferior  type, 
and  with  the  indifference  of  business  men  to  the  management  of 
municipal  affairs,  the  result  is  seen  in  the  absence  of  any  protest 
against  practices  which  are  undermining  the  municipal  undertak- 
ings." 

I  showed  the  foregoing  passage  to  two  members  of  the  Parlia- 
mentary Committee  of  the  Trades  Union  Congress  (corresponding 
to  the  Executive  Council,  American  Federation  of  Labor).  One 
of  them,  a  member  of  the  Newcastle  Council,  could  hardly  be  ex- 
pected to  give  a  reply,  though  he  is  one  of  the  most  popular  and 
highly  respected  Labor  members  of  Parliament.  The  other,  C.  W. 
Bowerman,  M.  P.,  whose  duties  on  the  Parliamentary  Committee, 
in  Parliament  and  the  London  County  Council,  and  for  many  years 
as  Secretary  of  the  Typographical  Union,  have  brought  him  in 
constant  contact  with  the  office-holding  and  other  union  officials 
of  Great  Britain,  said :  "I  have  never  heard  one  word  against  the 
Labor  members  of  the  Newcastle  and  Sheffield  Councils."  He  men- 
tioned several  of  his  acquaintances  among  them.  "Such  inferior 
Councillors  as  are  referred  to  by  Commissioner  Commons  would 
be  known  to  all  of  us,"  he  continued.  "They  are  not  known,  be- 
cause there  are  not  any.  I  consider  that  an  unfair  report."  I  men- 
tioned Alderman  Uttley,  the  only  Sheffield  Labor  Councillor  a  gas 
director.  Mr.  Bowerman  said :  "He  is  one  of  the  responsible  men 
in  the  Hearts  of  Oak,  a  great  popular  national  insurance  associa- 
tion, and  as  a  citizen  has  an  unimpeachable  standing." 

Hanbury  Thomas,  Managing  Director  of  the  Sheffield  Com- 
pany, said : 

"That  portion  of  Professor  Commons'  article  which  referred 
to  this  company  was  not  submitted  to  myself  or  an  official  of  the 
company  for  correction,  and  I  may  say  that  I  have  read  with  sur- 


14  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

prise  and  amusement  the  rather  remarkable  deductions  he  has  ar- 
rived at  from  information  given  by  this  company  to  the  Commis- 
sioners. 

"The  idea  that  the  Gas  Company,  who  are  the  largest  rate- 
payers in  Sheffield,  should  look  with  favor  on  the  election  of  in- 
ferior Councillors  is  absolutely  ridiculous.  If  the  Professor  were 
a  business  man  he  would  know  that  business  men  of  high  capacity 
are  far  more  easy  to  get  on  with  on  a  Board  than  men  of  small  ex- 
perience. 

"I  am  pleased  to  say  that  the  City  Council  has  always  paid 
this  company  the  compliment  of  sending  good  men  to  represent 
them  on  our  Board.  For  many  years  Alderman  Gainsford — a  Col- 
liery proprietor,  and  Chairman  of  the  Derwent  Valley  Water 
Board,  which  is  a  huge  scheme  for  supplying  water  to  Sheffield, 
Leicester,  Derby  and  one  or  two  other  towns — was  a  Nominee  Di- 
rector, and  only  recently  resigned  because  his  multifarious  duties 
prevented  his  having  the  time  to  give  that  amount  of  attention  to 
the  Gas  Company's  business  that  he  desired  to.  Alderman  Batty 
Langley  is  a  timber  merchant  in  a  large  way  of  business,  and  is  a 
Member  of  Parliament  for  the  Attercliffe  Division  of  Sheffield.  Al- 
derman Stuart  Uttley  is  a  Trade  Secretary,  and  I  may  say  one  of 
the  most  respected  men  of  his  class,  a  man  of  sound  common  sense, 
and  certainly  not  a  Socialist.  He  was  for  some  years  Chairman  of 
the  Highway  Committee.  It  is  certainly  news  to  me  that  he  has 
had  more  to  do  than  any  other  Director  in  fixing  the  hours  of  labor 
and  the  rates  of  wages  paid  to  the  employees  of  the  company.  It  has 
always  been  our  custom  to  pay  good  wages,  recognizing  that  there- 
by we  insured  good  service,  which  has  all  helped  to  bring  the  com- 
pany into  its  present  prosperous  condition. 

"With  regard  to  the  City  Council  generally,  I  am  sure  it  will 
compare  favorably  with  that  of  any  other  city  in  the  United  King- 
dom. We  have  men  in  it  of  very  high  capacity,  who  are  leading 
members  in  their  various  businesses  and  professions,  and  Sheffield 
is  generally  regarded  throughout  the  country  as  a  go-ahead  town. 

"With  respect  to  the  Gas  Company,  I  am  pleased  to  say  that 
its  management  stands  high  in  the  opinion  of  the  City  Council, 
and  also  of  the  whole  of  the  inhabitants,  who  recognize  that  the 
company  as  been  carried  on  as  much  for  the  benefit  of  the  consum- 
ers as  for  the  shareholders.  The  exceptionally  low  price  at  which 
gas  is  now  sold,  viz.,  Is.  4d.  down  to  Is.  per  1,000  cubic  feet,  is  am- 
ple proof  of  this.  Our  Chairman,  Sir  Frederick  Mappin,  has  for 
many  years  been  looked  upon  as  the  foremost  of  Sheffield's  citizens. 
He  has  been  Mayor,  Master  Cutler,  Member  of  Parliament  for  one 
of  the  Divisions",  and  Chairman  of  the  Technical  Department  of 
the  University  (in  fact,  he  was  the  making  of  this  Department), 
and  has  occupied  every  position  of  honor  it  was  possible  for  the 
town  to  place  him  in.  Sheffield  is  his  native  place,  and  it  has  never 
possessed  a  son  who  has  been  more  disinterestedly  devoted  to  its 
welfare. 

"I  think  these  facts  are  sufficient  in  themselves  to  refute  the 
statement  that  there  have  been  any  practices  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
pany calculated  to  undermine  municipal  undertakings. 

"The  Professor's  other  comments  are  equally  unfortunate,  and 
were  I  to  go  through  them  in  detail  I  should  find  myself  obliged 
to  contradict  most  of  the  conclusions  he  has  drawn/' 


DEFICIENCIES.  15 

IV. 

Investigator  Commons'  statements  against  the  Newcastle- 
upon-Tyne  Gas  Company  brought  out  these  comments  from  W. 
Doig  Gibb,  its  Chief  Engineer: 

"The  sentence  (page  102), — 'The  presence  of  private  gas, 
electricity  and  water  companies,  with  their  representatives  in  the 
Council,  prevents  the  leading  business  men  from  interesting  them- 
selves in  the  success  of  the  municipal  government,  while  an  equivo- 
cal class  of  labor  agitators  takes  advantage  of  the  situation  to  get 
elected  on  the  Council' — is  absolute  nonsense.  I  have  never  heard 
such  an  opinion  expressed  by  any  one  in  Newcastle. 

"It  is  next  to  impossible  to  have  Councillors  of  any  standing 
without  a  few  of  them  being  interested  in  the  local  semi-public 
enterprises,  such  as  the  gas  company  here  is.  But  when  any  busi- 
ness connected  with  their  company  is  being  discussed  in  the  Coun- 
cil Chamber  the  interested  members  very  seldom  take  any  part,  and 
then  only  by  way  of  explanation.  Indeed,  the  Secretary  and  myself 
think  that  the  gas  company  is  probably  handicapped  by  having 
two  of  their  directors  on  the  Council,  inasmuch  as  they  are  both 
sensible  men,  and  if  not  interested  would  vote  for  common  sense 
proposals.  As  it  is,  they  neither  influence  the  Council  nor  vote. 

"The  gas  company  at  Newcastle  does  not  pay  its  organized 
common  labor  the  same  minimum  as  the  municipality  (page  107). 
One  or  two  isolated  cases  may  have  been  taken  to  prove  this,  but  the 
general  practice  is  undoubtedly  that  the  gas  company  pays  from 
two  to  four  shillings  per  man  per  week  more. 

"  'The  presence  of  a  strong  labor  organization'  (page  110)  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  stokers  working  five  hours  for  eight 
hours'  pay.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  stokers  work  as  follows :  Each 
eight-hour  shift  is  divided  into  four  periods  ('charges'),  each  con- 
sisting of  three-quarters  of  an  hour  work  and  one  hour  and  a  quar- 
ter rest.  Thus  in  eight  hours  three  hours  is  actually  working  time, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  period  of  two  hours  the  men  are  not 
kept  to  take  their  rest  of  an  hour  and  a  quarter,  but  can  go  home. 
The  eight  hours  nominal  shift,  therefore,  consists  of  three  hours'* 
work  and  six  and  three-quarters  hours  in  all  at  the  works.  The 
men  are  paid  by  'charges'  and  not  by  hours.  No  stoker  could  work 
continually  for  eight  hours,  and  the  Newcastle  custom  is  the  or- 
dinary one  throughout  all  gas  works,  whether  union  shops  or  other- 
wise. 

"After  inquiries  I  am  unable  to  find  that  Professor  Commons 
submitted  any  manuscript  or  proof  to  any  official  of  this  company 
for  correction.  It  is  difficult  to  check  his  figures,  but  I  am  not  in 
agreement  with  many  of  them." 

Investigator  Commons'  bold  travesty  of  scientific  observation 
in  these  instances  brings  him  to  print  rash,  foolish  and  evidently 
forejudged  conclusions  as  facts  he  had  ascertained  and  presumably 
verified. 

MAKING   OUT   A    CASE   AGAINST   A    COMPANY,    NO    MAT- 
TER   WHAT    THE    FACTS. 

Investigator  Commons  was  the  sole  writer  of  the  sub-chapter, 
"Profit  Sharing  or  Copartnership  (pages  82-88,  "Eeports  of  Ex- 
perts— United  Kingdom"),  and  he  is  the  authority  for  references 


10  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

elsewhere  in  the  joint  report  to  the  South  Metropolitan  Gas  Com- 
pany, London.  My  permission  to  him  to  proceed  without  me  in 
this  and  several  other  cases  of  private  undertakings  came  about 
chiefly  through  his  baseless  assumption,  largely  by  insinuation,  that 
somehow  I  was  expected  to  defend  the  acts,  questionable  or  other- 
wise, of  the  companies  under  investigation.  To  this  point  I  shall 
refer  hereafter,  but  enough  to  say  here  that  when  Investigator 
Commons  on  one  occasion  in  London  alluded  to  this  idea  I  told 
him  to  go  ahead  and  give  all  the  evidence  he  had  found  of  oppres- 
sions of  labor  by  the  British  companies  and  I  would  accept  what- 
ever he  wrote.  I  added  that  of  course  he  would  set  down  such 
facts  on  honor  and  when  published  they  would  have  to  stand  the 
criticism  of  interested  readers.  I  was  busy  at  the  time  with  the 
management  of  the  Commission's  work,  so  I  allowed  him  free  rein 
in  gathering  material  against  the  British  companies.  He  was  an 
adept  in  presenting  such  matter  with  a  judicial  pose ;  besides,  as 
in  social  standing  he  was  a  university  professor  and  therefore  pre- 
sumptively an  American  gentleman,  why  not  trust  him?  In  re- 
flecting on  my  turning  over  this  work  to  Investigator  Commons  I 
have  at  times  questioned  myself  as  to  whether  there  ought  not  to 
have  been  with  us  a  third  labor  investigator — a  representative  of 
the  employers,  to  guard  over  their  rights  and  interests  at  each  step 
in  the  inquiry.  To  this  my  reply  at  this  stage  is,  first,  that  I  hoped 
for  a  fair  degree  of  foresight  from  Investigator  Commons  in  his 
unrestricted  procedures,  that  he  might  not  be  tripped  up  after- 
wards, and,  secondly,  that  I  knew  if  he  proved  notably  unfaithful 
I  must  give  publicity  to  his  shortcomings.  That  is  what  I  am 
obliged  to  do  now. 

Before  Investigator  Commons  reached  London  I  had  inter- 
viewed Will  Thome,  Secretary  of  the  Gas  Makers'  National  Union, 
and  Pete  Curran,  their  organizer,  getting  from  them  their  version 
of  the  South  Metropolitan  strike  of  1889  and  the  development 
since  of  that  company's  labor  copartnership.  I  had  also  hadi  com- 
munication with  the  company's  officials  and  given  them  our  book 
of  labor  questions — Schedule  II.  At  our  Commission's  London 
office,  engaged  in  occasional  employment  in  transcribing  and  con- 
densing legal  and  other  reports,  was  a  Mr.  S.  D.  Shallard,  a  Fabian 
editor  and  lecturer,  and  from  him  I  heard  the  Socialist  history  of 
the  labor  developments  at  the  South  Metropolitan  Works.  In  turn 
afterward  Investigator  Commons  saw  all  these  same  men,  of  both 
sides.  He  let  me  know,  from  time  to  time,  that  he  was  heaping  up 
facts,  important  ones,  in  the  South  Metropolitan  case,  greatly  to 
the  company's  discredit.  When,  in  October  following,  at  Madison, 
he  gave  me  his  instalment  of  the  report  on  this  subject  it  seemed 
to  me  easily  possible  to  get  up  what  he  had  written,  aside  from  the 
points  given  us  in  the  company's  replies  and  publications,  by  sim- 
ply quoting  the  union  Socialists  Thorne  and  Curran  and  the  vis- 
ionary Shallard.  He  had  managed  to  get  from  outsiders  some- 
where allegations  of  facts  or  interpretations  of  passages  in  the  com- 
pany's reports,  to  show  that  its  benefit  and  profit-sharing  schemes 
were  methods  by  which  the  employees  were  overworked  and  in  im- 
portant respects  tricked  out  of  the  benefits  and  compensations  due 
them  by  la\r.  This  latter  point,  insisted  on  by  him  as  demonstrable 
bv  his  statistics,  modified  greatly  my  own  favorable  estimate  of  the 


THE    SOUTH    METROPOLITAN    COMPANY.  IT 

company's  co-operative  features.  But  he  had  not  shown  his  matter 
to  the  company  for  its  version  of  possibly  inaccurate  or  controvert- 
ible  statements.  This  I  myself  have  done  recently — April,  1908- 
The  officials  of  the  company  had  already  "checked  up"  Investigator 
Commons'  errors  on  capital  points.  Following  are  examples : 

Page  84,  "Reports  of  Experts— United  Kingdom" ;  "In  1881> 
the  compam7,  in  accepting  the  eight-hour  s}rstem,  had  to  meet  a 
greatly  increased  cost  of  labor.  The  change  from  twelve  hours  to* 
eight,  at  the  same  rates  of  pay  per  day,  meant  an  increase  of  50 
per  cent,  in  the  cost  of  labor  in  the  retort  house.  In  order  to  over- 
come this  handicap  the  management  endeavored  in  many  ways  to 
increase  the  amount  of  work,  such  as  making  the  scoops  larger,  de- 
tailing men  to  keep  them  in  repair  and  to  see  that  they  were  kept 
full,  and  shortening  the  periods  of  rest,"  etc.  To  this  the  reply  of 
the  company  is  that  "it  was  quite  the  other  way.  The  men,  instead 
of  having  more  work  put  upon  them,  were  constantly  refusing  to- 
do  work  that  they  had  theretofore  done."  Scoops  were  not  made 
larger;  men  had  always  been  detailed  to  dress  scoops  even  before 
profit-sharing  was  started.  Machinery  was  introduced  which  les- 
sened the  manual  labor.  Conditions  as  to  periods  of  rest,  etc.,  are 
the  same  now  as  in  the  non-profit-sharing  companies.  But  no 
other  company  gives,  as  does  the  South  Metropolitan,  the  many 
benefits  of  profit-sharing,  plus  those  of  its  various  forms  of  benev- 
olent associations,  plus  aftei  ten  months'  services  a  week's  holiday 
with  pay  to  every  man  and  boy,  and  after  three  years'  services  the 
same  holiday  with  two  weeks'  pay.  Instead  of  a  growing  oppres- 
sion of  the  company's  laborers  there  has  been  constant  ameliora- 
tion in  their  condition.  The  holidays  were  in  vogue  before  the 
strike,  also  the  superannuation  and  sick  benefits.  The  benefits  of 
the  sick  fund  are  now  12  shillings  per  week  for  thirteen  weeks,  (> 
shillings  for  another  thirteen  weeks,  contribution  of  workmen  3d. 
per  week;  superannuation  3d.  per  week — 10  shillings  per  week  at 
the  age  of  65  years  and  25  years'  service.  Additions  to  pay  since  the 
strike  have  been,  first,  hours  per  week  reduced  from  60  to  54  with 
an  increase  of  i/^d.  per  hour;  secondly,  a  few  years  ago  an  addi- 
tional quarter  of  an  hour  for  breakfast,  with  no  decrease  of  pay; 
the  men  are  paid  for  54  hours  and  only  work  52%  hours ;  and  third- 
ly, last  year  an  additional  %d.  per  hour,  given  to  a  large  portion 
of  the  men.  There  is  no  need  for  any  man  to  lose  any  time  during 
the  year  unless  he  chooses.  Christmas  Day  and  Good  Friday  are 
paid  for  to  the  whole  force.  The  employees  pay  but  Is.  8d.  for  their 
gas  to  the  public's  2s.  3d.  per  1,000  feet.  They  get  their  coal  and 
coke  at  cost,  delivered  by  the  company's  vans.  They  have  company 
garden  allotments,  free  to  all,  at  Old  Kent  Road,  Greenwich,  and 
East  Greenwich.  The  average  holding  of  company  stock  and  sav- 
ings per  man  is  now  £60. 

The  company  makes  all  promotions  from  within  its  force.  In 
the  offices  are  thirty-six  sons  of  workmen.  When  slot  meters  were 
introduced  the  140  new  collectors  necessary  were  selected  from  the 
working  force.  The  contributions  of  the  company  in  1907  were: 
To  copartnership,  workmen  only,  £38,663  (including  officials, 
£45,590);  workmen's  accident  fund,  £1,264;  workmen's  superan- 
nuation fund,  £4,428;  \\crkmen's  sick  and  burial  fund,  £1,615; 
cost  of  holidays  given  workmen  (about),  £16,000;  to  benevolent 
societies,  hospitals,  etc.,  £1,008.  Through  the  company's  building 
society  its  workmen  have  built  or  bought  230  houses. 


18  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

Page  86,  Investigator  Commons :  "The  stock  [of  profit-sharing 
emplo3^ee]  can  be  withdrawn  or  sold  only  when  the  employee 
leaves  the  service  of  the  company.7'  Correction:  "The  members 
can  withdraw  their  stock  to  buy  a  house,  as  many  have  done,  or  in 
any  case  of  unforeseen  unusual  necessary  expenditure  not  to  be  met 
by  the  weekly  wage.  The  men  who  have  drawn  out  to  go  to  Amer- 
ica have  each  landed  there  with  a  round  sum  in  his  possession." 

Page  87,  Investigator  Commons :  "The  Copartnership  Commit- 
tee is  simply  a  means  of  registering  the  will  of  the  company 
through  its  chairman,  and  the  claim  that  it  is  a  joint  committee 
with  equal  representation  is  a  fiction  as  well  understood  by  the 
workmen  as  by  its  authors/7  (Investigator  Commons  originally 
ended  this  sentence  with  the  words  "is  false77  after  "representa- 
tion77; on  my  suggestion  he  adopted  the  roundabout  phrase  in- 
stead). Eeply  by  the  company7s  speakers:  "The  only  foremen 
who  are  elected  as  company  representatives  are  the  head  foremen  at 
each  station,  who  are  in  the  position  of  officers,  and  as  such  would 
not  be  eligible  for  election  by  the  workmen.  There  never  has  been 
any  attempt  at  interference  with  the  freedom  of  the  men  in  select- 
ing and  electing  their  representatives.  Only  very  rarely  have  they 
elected  a  sub-foreman.  All  wage-earners,  which  includes  many  of 
the  foremen,  are  eligible  to  serve  if  they  possess  the  qualification. 
The  sentence  as  to  the  'fiction7  is  very  unfair  and  quite  incorrect.77 
The  three  workmen  directors  of  the  company  united  in  saying: 
"The  paragraph  is  a  libel  on  the  committee.  We  contradict  every 
word  of  it.77 

Page  89,  Investigator  Commons:  "The  South  Metropolitan 
scheme  [of  sick  and  death  benefits]  is  the  oldest,  having  been  es- 
tablished for  officers  as  early  as  1842,  and  being  extended  to  differ- 
ent classes  of  workmen  at  different  times,77  etc.  It  was  the  work- 
men^ sick  and  burial  fund  that  was  established  in  1842 ;  and  their 
superannuation  fund  in  1855,  while  the  latter  for  the  officers  was 
started  in  1890. 

Same  page — As  to  the  mutual  benefit  schemes:  "Membership 
is  nominally  voluntary  but  actually  compulsory.77  Reply:  "Practi- 
cally all  the  workmen  contribute  to  the  accident  fund  because  tho 
benefits  considerably  exceed  in  the  aggregate  those  obtainable  un- 
der the  Workmen7s  Compensation  Act,  and  they  always  get  the 
compensation  without  difficulty  or  uncertainty,  while  the  subscrip- 
tion by  the  workmen  is  nominal ;  it  used  to  be  a  half -penny  a  week, 
but  it  now  ranges  from  Id.  a  month  to  Id.  a  quarter.  The  sub- 
scribers to  the  sick  fund  are  fewer  than  to  the  accident  fund,  and 
still  less  to  the  superannuation  fund.  Thus  it  is  seen  that  member- 
ship is  really  voluntary.77 

Page  90,  Investigator  Commons :  "Engineers  and  heads  of  de- 
partments twice  a  year  examine  their  lists  of  workmen  and  put  on 
the  fund  all  who  are  eligible.77  Reply:  "Workmen  are  simply  no- 
tified that  they  can  join  if  they  like.  It  is  a  purely  voluntary  act, 
as  the  figures  just  given  show.77 

Page  94,  after  referring  to  the  intervention  of  the  Registrar  of 
Friendly  Societies  possible  in  case  workmen  send  him  a  formal 
complaint  that  a  benefit  scheme  is  being  violated  or  not  fairly  ad- 
ministered, Investigator  Commons  writes:  "This  provision  is  en- 
tirely worthless  unless  the  workmen  are  protected  from  dismissal  by 


THE    SOUTH    METROPOLITAN    COMPANY.  19 

a  trade  union  or  otherwise.  Consequently  the  cases  of  inadequate 
compensation  at  the  South  Metropolitan  Works,  compared  with 
what  the  act  would  require,  do  not  provoke  public  complaint  on  the 
part  of  the  workmen  or  investigation  by  the  Registrar.  The  admin- 
istration of  the  fund  is  under  charge  of  the  Copartnership  Com- 
mittee, which,  as  shown  above,  is  a  pretended  joint  committee  of  the 
company  and  workmen,  but  really  a  committee  of  the  company." 
Eeply :  "This  is  unfair  and  untrue.  Further,  no  man  has  ever  been 
dismissed  from  the  company  for  his  action  regarding  its  benevolent 
or  profit-sharing  schemes/' 

Page  95,  relative  to  legal  compensation  for  injuries  caused  by 
"serious  and  wilful  misconduct"  of  a  member  of  a  benefit  scheme, 
Investigator  Commons  says:  "In  the  South  Metropolitan  scheme 
the  employer  and  not  the  court  is  the  final  judge."  Eeply:  "Not 
true.  The  twelve  workmen  jurymen  are  left  absolutely  alone  to 
decide  on  and  write  their  verdict.  The  jury  do  not  hesitate  to 
award  blame  to  officer  or  workman  if  deserved." 

Same  page,  Investigator  Commons:  "In  one  case  certified  to 
before  the  departmental  committee  a  man  who  cleaned  machinery 
while  it  was  in  motion  was  debarred  [from  company  benefits]  be- 
cause he  had  wilfully  done  what  he  had  instructions  not  to  do." 
Eeply:  "He  could  recover  nevertheless  his  legal  compensation." 

Pages  96  and  97,  Investigator  Commons:  "Under  the  Work- 
men's Compensation  Act,  special  protection  is  thrown  about  the 
medical  examination"  (of  an  injured  employee)  .  .  .  "In  the 
South  Metropolitan  scheme  the  only  doctor  provided  when  the 
claim  is  made  is  the  company  doctor,  who  also  acts  as  surgeon  to 
the  sick  fund."  Then  follows,  as  if  a  typical  illustration,  the  de- 
tailed description  of  the  case  of  a  bricklayer,  whose  complaints 
against  the  company  are  still  harped  upon  by  its  critics.  He  was 
on  the  funds  for  thirty-eight  weeks  and  then  complained  that  by  law 
he  should  receive  a  higher  grade  of  compensation.  He  did  not  get 
it  and  protested.  Investigator  Commons  stands  up  for  him  as  if 
protecting  a  group  of  the  downtrodden.  Eeply :  "His  fellow  work- 
men began  to  regard  this  man  as  a  malingerer  as  eight  months 
passed  by.  He  was  examined  not  only  by  the  company  doctor,  but 
by  his  club  doctor  and  a  doctor  of  his  own  choice.  A  few  weeks 
after  this  protest  he  accepted  the  verdict  of  these  doctors  and  the 
workmen's  jury,  and  came  back  to  work.  He  is  working  now  for 
the  company,  the  same  as  if  he  had  never  complained  against  its 
treatment.  So  far  from  being  typical,  this  was  the  only  disputed 
case  ever  up.  Why  cite  it  and  overlook  the  many  in  which  work- 
men have  been  dealt  with  liberally  ?  An  instance :  Laborer  Dyball 
some  years  ago  lost  a  leg  and  the  heel  of  the  other  foot  in  an  acci- 
dent at  the  works.  Ity  law  he  could  not  have  got  more  than  £300. 
Up  to  April,  1908,  he  had  received  more  than  £700  and  was  still 
receiving  £1  per  week." 

Page  97,  Investigator  Commons,  as  one  of  his  counts  against 
the  company,  cites  that  three  of  its  twenty-three  widow  pensioners 
were  paid  less  than  the  minimum  stipulated  in  the  rules.  Eeply: 
"One  of  the  three  is  a  widow  with  no  claim  on  the  fund,  as  the 
fatal  accident  to  her  husband  happened  in  1895,  three  years  before 
the  fund  was  started.  The  other  two  are  children,  for  whom  ample 
provision  was  made." 


20  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

Page  98,  Investigator  Commons :  "Their  [the  employees']  con- 
tributions have  paid  all  the  extra  benefits  which  the  [South  Met- 
ropolitan Company's]  scheme  provides  and  an  additional  amount  of 
£380  as  a  contributon  in  aid  of  the  company  in  paying  the  com- 
pensation for  which  under  the  [Workmen's  Compensation]  Act  the 
company  is  responsible."  Reply :  "Instead  of  the  employees  paying 
£380  more  in  the  eight  years  than  the  extra  benefit  received  it  was 
actually  over  £1,000  the  other  way,  if  the  doctors'  fees  had  been 
properly  charged.  The  sick  fund  paid  about  £1,500  that  should 
have  been  charged  to  the  accident  fund." 

Page  43,  Investigator  Commons:  "The  twelve-hour  and  two- 
shift  system  [instead  of  eight  hours  and  three  shifts]  was  restored 
in  two  stations  by  vote  of  the  unorganized  gas  workers,  on  the 
ground  that  the  increased  amount  of  work  was  too  much  for  eight 
hours."  Investigator  Commons  fails  to  tell  his  readers  that  the 
twelve-hour  shifts  at  one  of  the  two  stations,  which  together  em- 
ploy about  one-third  the  entire  force,  are  worked  in  the  winter  only, 
when  the  three  shifts  of  the  summer  force  all  find  work  with  the 
change  in  demand.  The  fewer  retorts  in  use  in  the  summer  give 
the  hands  work  in  the  eight-hour  shifts. 

On  July  18,  1906,  Sir  George  Livesey  met  the  Commission  at 
the  company's  offices,  709  Old  Kent  Road,  Investigator  Commons 
being  present.  I  took  full  notes  of  Sir  George's  remarks  and  re- 
plies to  questions,  had  them  afterward  typewritten,  and  gave  Inves- 
tigator Commons  a  copy.  He  could  therefore  not  plead  that  he  was* 
not  aware  of  these  statements  by  Sir  George  regarding  the  twelve 
(really  eleven)  hour  shifts: 

"There  are  three  shifts  at  Old  Kent  Road  and  Vauxhall  Works, 
and  two  at  Greenwich.  At  Rotherhithe  the  men  work  two  shifts  of 
about  11  hours  in  winter  and  three  of  eight  hours  in  summer.  The 
two-shift  man  does  about  one-fifth  more  work  than  the  three-shift 
man.  He  is  paid  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  coal  handled.  The 
men  at  Rotherhithe  say  they  would  prefer  two  shifts  throughout 
the  year.  The  two  shifts  were  started  about  six  years  ago." 

Page  110,  Volume  1,  in  his  review  of  the  Labor  Report  ("La- 
bor and  Politics"),  Investigator  Commons  writes:  "This  twelve- 
hour  system  [at  two  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Company's  stations], 
resulting  from  the  smashing  of  the  union  and  the  overwork  of  the 
employees,  is  approved  in  some  quarters  as  a  'genuine  example  of 
co-operation.' ';  This  sneer  bears  reference  to  what  I  had  written 
in  my  review  respecting  labor  conditions  at  the  company's  works 
(page  61)  :  "Its  employees'  stock  in  the  company  represents  a  larger 
sum  than  is  similarly  possessed  by  any  equal  number  of  laborers  in 
England,  and  its  provisions  for  sickness,  death  and  old  age  are  un- 
usual. Ninety-odd  per  cent,  of  the  employees  of  these  works  save 
something.  A  Labor  Liberal  member  of  Parliament  said  of  the 
Company  to  one  of  our  committee :  'A  gas  worker  can  nowhere  get  a 
better  job.'  The  Co-operative  Union  accepts  the  works  as  a  genu- 
ine example  of  co-operation." 

Investigator  Commons  makes  much  of  the  strike  of  the  gas 
workers  in  1889  and  joins  with  the  embittered  leaders  of  that  strike 
and  the  Socialists  in  regarding  the  noteworthy  results  of  the  com- 
pany's labor  copartnership  methods  as  simply  the  outcome  of  union 
wrecking  and  labor  sweating.  He  fails  to  give  a  true  account  any- 
where of  the  friendly  attitude  of  the  company  toward  trade  union- 


THE    SOUTH    METROPOLITAN    COMPANY.  21 

ism  or  of  the  attitude  of  trade  unions  (other  than  that  of  the  gas 
workers)  toward  the  company. 

Nearly  a  decade  ago,  Sir  George  Livesey,  the  head  of  the  gas 
company   (Oct.  14,  1899),  at  a  Labor  Association  conference  at 
Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  referred  to  the  causes  of  the  strike  of  1889 
and  his  attitude  toward  unions.    After  remarking  that  it  was  then 
twenty-five  years  since  he  suggested  the  sliding  scale  to  identify 
the  interests  of  gas  shareholders  and  gas  consumer,  he  said :  "The 
relations  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Gas  Company  with  their  work- 
men had  always  been  of  a  friendly  character  until  after  the  grant- 
ing of  the  eight-hour  or  three-shift  system  to  the  stokers  in  1889. 
This  had  been  offered  to  but  not  adopted  by  the  men,  both  in  1887 
and  1888;  consequently,  when  the  request  was  made,  in  the  summer 
of  1889,  on  the  instigation  of  the  Gas  Stokers'  Union,  it  was  grant- 
ed at  once.    All  went  well  for  a  few  weeks  only ;  the  union  had  got 
all  that  it  asked  so  easily  that  further  demands — some  trifling,  some 
serious — were  made  and  granted  rather  than  risk  a  strike,  which 
was  imminent  at  any  moment.     In  October,   1889,  a  suggestion 
was  made,  at  the  Board,  that  it  would  be  better  to  make  friends  of 
the  men  than  to  fight  them.     The  Directors  agreed,  and  the  same 
afternoon  the  outline  of  the  profit-sharing  scheme  was  explained  to 
ten  or  twelve  leading  workmen.    They  all  approved,  but  those  who 
were  members  of  the  Gas  Workers'  Union  said  they  must  consult 
the  delegates  before  committing  themselves  to  its  acceptance.    The 
union   refused  its  sanction,   demanding    that    the    profit-sharing 
money  should  be  given  in  wages,  thus  excluding  all  the  stokers — 
about  two-thirds  of  the  company's  workmen.     At  the  time  it  was 
felt  this  put  an  end  to  the  matter;  but  the  yard  men  and  mechan- 
ics let  it  be  known  that  they  did  not  see  why  they  should  be  deprived 
of  a  good  thing  because  it  was  refused  by  others.     This  was  re- 
ported to  the  next  meeting  of  the  Board,  when  it  was  resolved  to 
offer  participation  to  any  workmen,  many  or  few,  who  chose  to  ac- 
cept it,  leaving  every  man  perfectly  free  to  accept  or  reject  it,  with 
no  restriction  or  condition  as  to  membership  of  the  union.     The 
stokers  to  a  man  refused,  the  others — about  1,000  in  number — ac- 
cepted within  a  fortnight.     The  act  or  condition  of  acceptance  was 
the  signing  of  an  agreement  for  twelve  months,  with  a  proviso  that 
any  man  might  leave  on  a  week's  notice,  with  the  consent  of  the 
engineer. 

"The  agreements  were  signed  during  the  month  of  November, 
and  toward  the  end  of  the  month  three  stokers  signed.  The  union 
demanded  their  'removal',  which  was  refused,  and  two  days  later, 
on  the  4th  of  December,  1889,  the  further  demand  was  made  for 
'the  removal  from  the  works'  of  all  the  men  who  had  signed  agree- 
ments and  the  abolition  of  the  profit-sharing  scheme.  This  demand 
could  not  be  complied  with,  and,  being  refused,  the  union  gave  a 
week's  notice  for  each  of  the  2,000  stokers  on  the  following  day,  but 
some  of  the  notices  were  forged.  .  .  .  The  company,  however, 
neither  before  nor  during  the  strike  (of  which  the  cost  and  losses 
direct  and  indirect  exceeded  £100,000)  made  any  objection  to  the 
employment  of  members  of  the  Gas  Workers'  Union,  or  to  their 
joining  the  profit-sharing  arrangement;  but  after  the  strike  endec^ 
and  the  company  had  agreed  to  take  back  unionists  to  fill  any  va- 
cancies, the  secretary  of  the  union  said  publicly  that  they  made  a 


22  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

mistake  in  giving  a  week's  notice,  and  he  warned  the  consumers  of 
London  that  they  would  not  give  a  week's  notice  next  time,  which 
threat  was  met  by  the  company  declaring  that  in  order  to  protect 
the  consumers  of  London  they  would  not  employ  members  of  that 
union.  This  had  no  connection  whatever  with  profit-sharing,  and 
in  proof  I  may  say  that  when  introducing  a  similar  system  at  the 
Crystal  Palace  District  Gas  Works  in  1894  the  men  were  distinctly 
and  emphatically  told  that  they  Were  perfectly  free  to  continue 
members  of  the  Gas  Workers'  or  any  Union,  and  that  they,  or  any 
of  them — for  there  must  be  no  compulsion  of  any  kind — were 
equally  free  to  accept  or  reject  the  profit-sharing  scheme,  and  so 
it  remains  at  those  works  to  this  day.  These  statements  of  facts 
without  comment  are  given  because  I  wish  to  conceal  nothing.  A 
life-long  association  with  workmen  has  shown  me  that  above  all 
things  they  like  to  be  dealt  with  fairly  and  squarely  and  honestly, 
and  I  have  found  that  where  confidence  is  given  it  will  be  re- 
turned." 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  there  never  has  been  anv  dis- 
pute at  the  company's  works  with  the  1,000  yard  men  or  the  hun- 
dreds of  the  skilled  workmen  of  various  trades.  These  have  been  em- 
ployed at  better  than  union  conditions.  There  are  engineers  and 
other  skilled  tradesmen  on  the  superannuation  list  not  only  of  the 
company  but  of  their  trade  unions.  Excepting  for  a  brief  period 
after  the  strike  the  works  have  always  been  open,  as  they  are  now, 
to  union  gas  makers. 

Leading  trade  unionists  of  England  have  attended  Labor  Co- 
partnership Association  conferences  with  Sir  George  Livesey  and 
spoken  from  the  same  platform  with  him  and  commended  his  com- 
pany's labor  copartnership.  Among  these  are  D.  J.  Shackleton,  M. 
P.,  the  leading  spokesman  in  the  House  of  Commons  for  organized 
labor;  Alexander  Wilkie,  M.  P.,  National  Secretary  of  the  Ship- 
wrights' Union  (both  of  whom  have  been  sent  as  delegates  from 
the  British  trade  union  Congress  to  Conventions  of  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor)  ;  Hugh  Boyle,  President  of  the  Xorthumber- 
land  Miners'  Association ;  Thomas  Burt,  M.  P.,  of  the  miners,  and 
Henry  Vivian,  M.  P.,  and  F.  Maddison,  M.  P.,  both  of  the  Typo- 
graphical Union.  The  productive  societies  of  the  Labor  Copart- 
nership Association  now  number  more  than  one  hundred,  and  all, 
including  five  gas  companies,  recognize  trade  union  requirements. 
Another  five  gas  companies  have  adopted  the  system  this  year,  and 
several  others  intend  to  follow. 

Profit-sharing  and  Labor  Copartnership  are  harmonious  in 
their  relations  with  the  British  Co-operative  movement,  though  not 
strictly  a  part  of  it.  In  a  letter  to  me,  January  15,  1908,  J.  C. 
Gray,  General  Secretary,  Co-operative  Union,  the  executive  head 
of  the  united  co-operative  societies  of  the  Kingdom,  writes :  "I  be- 
lieve the  South  Metropolitan  profit-sharing  scheme  is  quite  genu- 
ine and  advantageous  to  the  workmen." 

On  Wednesday,  April  22,  the  present  year,  I  attended  a  meet- 
ing of  the  company  officials  and  over  900  delegates  of  the  men  on 
the  occasion  of  the  presentation  to  the  employees  of  a  new  hall  on 
the  works  grounds.  The  men  in  turn  presented  a  testimonial  to 
Mr.  Bush,  who  had  just  become  a  director  after  serving  the  com- 
pany as  secretary  for  twenty-six  years.  Sir  George  Livesey,  in  a 


THE    SOUTH    METROPOLITAN    COMPANY.  28 

speech,  said  the  company  and  the  men  had  no  differences  and  had 
not  had  any  in  nearly  two  decades.  Nothing  was  kept  from  the 
men.  They  were  free  to  elect  their  own  three  directors  and  their 
committeemen.  Any  man  could  make  complaints  if  he  had  any. 
Both  the  employers  and  the  employed  of  the  company  desired  to 
show  England  and  the  world  how  to  preserve  peace  and  substitute 
thrift  for  unthrift,  how  capital  and  labor  could  join  hands,  and 
how  laborers  in  an  industry  could  become  capitalists.  In  June 
£400,000  of  the  company's  eight  millions  of  capital  would  be  held 
by  its  employees.  The  day  could  be  foreseen  when  the  company's 
employees  might  hold  the  majority  of  the  stock !  So  far  from  being 
a  scheme  for  getting  the  better  of  the  men,  the  company's  plan 
could  in  time  at  its  present  rate  of  progress  permit  the  men  to 
rule  the  company.  Here  was  the  possibility  of  a  great,  practical, 
and  peaceable  transformation  of  society. 

The  hearty  applause  and  cheering  that  greeted  these  remarks 
could  never  have  been  the  result  of  coercion  or  cajolery. 

Two  of  the  three  workmen  directors  went  over  Investigator 
Commons'  report  with  me  and  patiently  pointed  out  its  errors. 
Apart  from  these  men,  company  officials  gave  me  the  same  expla- 
nations. Mr.  Austin,  the  third  director,  has  since  written  me  his 
replies  on  the  same  points.  The  three  parties  thus  replying  sepa- 
rately made  the  same  statements.  Mr.  Austin  complains  that  Com- 
missioner Commons'  report  contained  not  one  word  of  a  long  con- 
versation between  the  two  in  my  presence  in  July,  1906,  when  Mr. 
Austin  had  tried  to  impress  on  Mr.  Commons  the  value  of  the 
company's  exertions  in  raising  the  workmen  to  a  higher  level  of 
comfort  and  happiness,  as  other  of  the  employees  when  questioned 
by  us  had  done.  Mr.  Austin  knew  nothing  of  dismissals  of  work- 
men because  of  their  dislike  of  the  copartnership  scheme.  He  chal~ 
lenged  this  statement  of  Investigator  Commons. 

On  the  whole,  Investigator  Commons'  account  of  the  South 
Metropolitan  Gas  Company's  labor  copartnership  is  (1)  as  to  va- 
rious indisputable  features,  a  mere  transcription  from  the  com- 
pany's reports  and  other  publications  which  permitted  little  scope 
for  incorrectness;  and  (2)  as  to  points  obtained  from  partisan 
faultfinders,  misstatements  and  misinterpretations  of  the  acts,  spirit 
and  intentions  of  the  company  wherein  it  is  opposed  by  a  small  knot 
of  extremist  and  Socialist  enemies.  The  Investigator's  unchecked 
bias  in  this  matter  was  such  as  to  deprive  him  of  any  chance  for  a 
reputation  in  Great  Britain  as  a  fair  minded  observer  and  recorder 
of  the  truth.  The  company's  achievement?,  the  most  notable  of  the 
kind  in  the  world,  have  been  thoroughly  discussed  by  all  classes, 
and  it  was  left  to  Investigator  Commons  to  adopt  views  of  them 
no  longer  held  to-day,  even  in  trade  union  circles,  except  by  men- 
forced  by  events  to  be  irreconcilables. 

MANOEUVRING   TO    INJURE    COMPANIES    AND    SUPPRESS 
FACTS    FAVORABLE    TO    THEM. 

We  have  at  this  stage  of  our  examination  basis  enough  for 
keenly  appreciating  Investigator  Commons'  capabilities  for  uttering" 
false  testimony,  whether  by  audacious  reversals  of  the  truth  or  by 
labored  perversion  and  obscuration.  He  now  deserves  attention  as 
an  adept  in  manoeuvring.  Some  of  his  acts  in  this  capacity  I  al- 
lowed to  pass  by  at  the  time  I  witnessed  them  as  not  to  be  mended 


24  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

by  discussion;  on  others  I  put  a  charitable  construction;  others, 
again,  only  cam«  well  into  the  light  after  his  review  had  been  pub- 
lished. 

I. 

While  I  was  in  Chicago  in  September,  1906,  just  before  going 
to  Madison,  one  of  the  officers  of  the  Chicago  Edison  Company 
gave  me  a  copy  of  a  confidential  letter  written  by  him  to  the  Vice- 
President  containing  certain  data,  some  of  which  was  of  possible 
value  to  our  commission.  This  letter,  of  course,  I  turned  over  to 
Investigator  Commons,  with  information  as  to  its  strictly  private 
character  for  the  time  being.  In  November  I  received  from  the 
company  a  communication  saying  that  City  Electrician  Carroll  of 
Chicago  had  quoted  to  them  from  this  private  letter  of  the  com- 
pany, stating  that  Investigator  Commons  had  given  him  a  copy  of 
it.  The  Chicago  Edison  official  wrote  me :  "I  am  somewhat  sur- 
prised that  this  report  .  .  .  should  have  been  turned  over  to 
Mr.  Carroll,  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  Civic  Federation,  especially 
before  such  time  as  the  complete  report  of  the  National  Civic  Fed- 
eration was  approved  and  published."  The  President  of  the  Chi- 
cago Edison  Company  wrote  a  letter  of  formal  protest  to  the  Exec- 
utive Manager  of  the  Civic  Federation  in  regard  to  this  underhand 
breach  of  faith  by  Investigator  Commons.  Even  had  the  letter  not 
been  a  confidential  deposit  with  us,  to  hand  a  copy  of  it  to  a  busi- 
ness rival  of  the  company  would  have  been  discreditable  to  our 
Commission. 

II. 

Investigator  Commons,  in  the  opening  of  his  review  (page 
88),  announces:  "I  shall  take  the  report  as  a  whole,  and  shall  try 
to  bring  together  all  of  the  facts  exactly  as  they  are  and  in  their 
true  proportions."  And  he  announces  on  the  next  page  his  intention 
"in  weighing  and  interpreting  the  facts,"  to  "summarize  all  the 
facts" — which  he  asserts  I  had  failed  to  do. 

The  most  careless  reader  of  either  the  labor  or  the  other  in- 
vestigators' reports  in  the  volumes  issued  by  the  Commission  mu3t 
have  observed  that  nothing  more  valuable  to  America  from  every 
point  of  view  came  from  any  undertaking  than  the  exhaustive  infor- 
mation from  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Company  of  Philadel- 
phia. Investigator  Commons  and  I  spent  ten  days  of  energetic 
work  looking  into  the  labor  affairs  of  the  company  in  January, 
1906.  When  not  actually  at  one  or  other  of  the  works  or  in  the 
company's  central  offices,  guided  by  competent  informants,  we  were 
visiting  the  Central  Labor  Union's  headquarters  or  the  offices  of  the 
unions  which  might  be  represented  in  the  company's  works  or  in 
kindred  occupations. 

In  no  wise  did  we  unearth  anything  to  the  company's  possible 
discredit  regarding  labor.  Day  by  day  our  developments,  instead 
of  revealing  a  soulless  corporation's  neglect  of  the  rights  of  work- 
ingmen,  brought  us  convincing  testimony  of  the  company's  liberal 
treatment  of  both  office  help  and  works  forces  as  to  wages,  hours, 
methods  of  promotion,  and  the  sanitation  so  important  in  the  retort 
houses.  But  Investigator  Commons  could  not  grow  enthusiastic. 
His  conscience  was  troubled  by  a  mysterious  piece  of  knowledge 
which  he  hinted  to  me  darkly  at  times  and  which  overbalanced 
everything  we  saw  to  the  company's  credit.  At  length,  when  it 


THE    UNITED    GAS    IMPROVEMENT    COMPANY.  25 

came  out,  it  was  that  he  already  knew  from  Professor  Bemis  that 
the  superintendent  of  one  of  the  works  had  stated  on  the  witness 
stand  a  decade  before  that  he  had  put  some  men  at  work  on  the  so- 
licitation of  city  Councilmen.  This  is  the  one  point  of  the  three  or 
four  he  touches  upon  in  relation  to  the  company  that  is  made  to 
count  in  Investigator  Commons'  entire  review.  Yet  in  the  mean- 
time a  written  statement  of  the  facts  had  been  made  by  the  su- 
perintendent in  question  (page  520,  Part  II,  Vol.  I).  In  the  early 
'90s,  during  a  period  of  industrial  distress,  in  a  force  of  twenty  to 
forty  laborers  he  had  given  alternating  spells  of  three  months  to 
out-of-works  of  the  neighborhood,  among  others  to  men  recom- 
mended by  their  usual  social  spokesmen — their  priests  and  Council- 
men. 

This  one  point  especially  is  what  Eeformer  Commons  carried 
away  with  him  from  Philadelphia  to  give  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  The  barest  mention,  in  a  brief  phrase  or  two,  is  all  he  has 
in  his  review  regarding  the  full  statement  printed  after  the  joint 
labor  report  in  which  every  feature  of  the  employment,  organiza- 
tion, conditions,  and  general  treatment  of  the  company's  thousands 
of  employees  of  to-day  is  considered.  He  had  had  far  more  oppor- 
tunity to  know  that  all  the  facts  of  this  statement  were  true  than 
he  had  to  inform  himself  as  to  the  three  undertakings  of  Glasgow, 
where  he  spent  in  all  only  a  few  working  days,  which  receive  ex- 
tended favorable  notice  both  in  the  joint  report  and  in  his  review. 
In  the  British  tour  he  was  for  six  weeks  much  in  the  society  of  the 
Third  Vice-President  of  the  Philadelphia  company  and  two  of  its 
prominent  operative  officials,  frequently  hearing  them  describe  its 
methods  by  comparison  with  others'  in  response  to  inquiries. 

While  the  Commissioners  were  in  Philadelphia  in  December, 
1906,  Investigator  Commons  was  by  appointment  several  times  in 
consultation  with  the  Assistant  to  the  Third  Vice-President  over  the 
details  to  be  embodied  in  our  joint  report.  With  that  official  he 
was  one  evening  working  over  the  very  matter  that  appears  in  the 
report  without  his  signature,  leaving  the  task  unfinished  but  under 
engagement  to  resume  it  next  morning.  He  never  returned;  he 
resented  my  reminding  him  of  his  engagement ;  he  never  explained 
his  remissness. 

On  receiving  soon  after  from  the  company  the  manuscripts 
prepared  by  the  various  heads  of  departments  in  response  to  our 
schedule  and  verbal  inquiries,  I  sent  the  package,  untouched  by  me, 
to  Investigator  Commons  in  Madison  for  revision  from  his  notes 
and  other  data.  He  returned  it  to  me  by  mail  February  16,  unre- 
vised,  writing :  "I  approve  of  sending  this  out  to  the  Twenty-One 
[as  part  of  our  joint  report]  provided  Rowe's  report  is  sent. 
This  is  the  spirit  of  my  understanding  that  we  would  leave  the 
write-up  of  our  report  to  the  U.  G.  I.,  provided  Eowe  wrote  up  iits 
history."  Professor  Rowe  was  in  South  America  at  the  time ;  some 
of  the  statements  of  his  histo^  referred  to  were  spoken  of  by  M?. 
Walton  Clark  as  being  such  as  Professor  Rowe  himself  would  not 
make  were  he  to  see  the  evidences  of  their  error  that  the  company 
was  prepared  to  furnish.  I  therefore  proposed  to  Investigator  Com- 
mons that  I  should  go  over  the  Philadelphia  labor  report  manu- 
script first,  carefully  cutting  out  all  that  he  and  I  might  not  be  able 
to  subscribe  to  as  being  pertinent,  or  in  accordance  with  our  notes, 


26  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

or  equally  reliable  as  the  information  we  obtained  by  word  of  mouth 
at  other  undertakings.  By  these  tests  I  worked  the  manuscript 
over.  I  sent  it  to  him  February  24.  He  had  it  in  his  hands  a  month 
when,  March  23,  he  wrote  me :  "I  hope  to  get  the  U.  G.  I.  matter 
to  you  [for  the  printer],  but  I  have  been  delayed  because  I  wanted 
to  write  to  Philadelphia  regarding  a  few  of  the  points,  in  order  to 
see  whether  I  could  properly  sign  the  report  without  having  made 
a  visit  to  Philadelphia  in  order  to  verify  statements." 

Only  "a  few  of  the  points"  were  still  in  doubt  with  him  there- 
fore ten  days  before  I  sailed  from  New  York.  Meantime  I  had 
written  him  that  Mr.  Clark  would  make  no  opposition  to  the  pres- 
entation of  Prof.  Eowe's  history  to  the  Twenty-One.  In  my  last 
letter  to  Investigator  Commons  before  sailing  I  informed  him  I 
would  trust  him  to  finish  his  revision  himself. 

He  never  had  any  further  communication  with  the  company 
on  the  subject.  After  I  had  gone  he  sent  the  manuscript  to  the 
printer  with  an  introduction  in  which,  by  saying  it  was  prepared 
under  the  direction  of  Mr.  Clark  and  revised  by  me,  he  evaded 
responsibility  for  its  statements.  Thenceforth  he  almost  ignored  it. 

In  his  review  (page  107)  he  sums  up  relative  to  an  important 
conclusion :  "In  the  United  States  the  minimum  paid  for  common 
labor  by  the  private  companies  is  in  all  cases  except  Atlanta  lower 
than  that  of  the  municipality,"  etc.  Then  he  leaves  Philadelphia 
out  of  his  list  of  comparisons;  it  would  destroy  his  thesis.  (See 
reference  58  in  my  analysis  of  his  review.) 

Investigator  Commons'  omission  of  the  Philadelphia  company 
from  his  review,  except  mainly  thus  to  misrepresent  it  in  his  wages 
summary  and  in  his  references  to  political  appointments,  is  proof 
past  question  that  he  purposely  blinked  the  facts  of  the  largest  im- 
port to  our  mission  when  they  weighed  against  his  side.  This 
crime  against  the  code  of  honor  among  investigators  he  could  com- 
mit while  advertising  himself  as  an  impartial  witness  and  historian. 
When  it  is  known  that  his  misrepresentations  were  made  in  the 
circumstances  just  related,  the  reader  has  a  measure  of  his  capa- 
bilities as  a  trickster  and  dodger. 

III. 

Had  I  been  within  consulting  distance,  I  should  have  opposed 
the  omission  from  the  joint  report  of  a  sub-chapter  which,  except 
the  concluding  sentences,  had  been  written  by  me  and  accepted  by 
my  colleague  in  Madison,  October,  1906,  and  which  had  been  stand- 
ing in  type  for  months  when  I  left  New  York  for  Europe,  April  3, 
1907.  Herewith  reproduced,  it  related  how  the  labor  investigation 
was  carried  on  and  how  the  joint  report  took  shape.  I  wrote  this 
account  in  order  that  we  as  authors  might  not  seem  to  be  too  sure 
of  all  of  our  statements,  and  to  excuse  ourselves  for  possible  omis- 
sions, and  in  general  to  be  candid  with  our  readers.  If  printed,  it 
would  have  extinguished  Investigator  Commons'  claim :  "The  entire 
report  as  it  stands,  except  New  Haven  and  Philadelphia,  was  writ- 
ten by  myself  on  the  basis  of  facts  which  I  personally  investigated."" 
It  was  headed  "The  Labor  Investigation" : 

"As  a  beginning,  Messrs.  Commons  and  Sullivan,  as  members  of  the 
Committee  of  Twenty-One,  spent  several  days  in  Pittsburg  in  Novem- 
ber, 1905,  during  the  annual  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor,  their  purpose  being  to  meet  delegates  from  the  cities  which  they 


MATTER  OMITTED.  27 

were  to  visit  in  the  course  of  the  investigation.  They  began  systematic 
work  in  Philadelphia.  January  16,  1906.  Their  labors  in  that  city,  Rich- 
mond, Atlanta,  Pitteburg  and  Allegheny  took  up  the  next  four  weeks, 
when  Mr  Sullivan,  after  being  summoned  to  a  meeting  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  Five  in  Philadelphia,  was  selected  to  go  to  Great  Britain  in 
the  Dlace  of  Mr  W  J.  Clark,  who  was  detained  in  America  by  press- 
ing duties  with  the  company  in  which  he  is  an  official.  Professor  Com- 
mons returned  to  the  University  at  Madison,  Wis^,  and  Mr  Sullivan 
joined  Dr  M.  R.  Maltbie  in  London  on  March  o.  On  March  13,  he  set 
out  to  open  up  for  the  investigation  the  undertakings  in  the  Provinces- 
tint  had  been  placed  on  the  list  by  the  committee.  He  reached  London 
a^ain  in  four  weeks,  collection  of  labor  data  having  been  difficult  while 
pursuing  the  important  task  in  hand.  In  London,  waiting  on  the  mana- 
gers of  local  undertakings  and  persons  influential  with  them  continually 
interrupted  labor  work.  The  office  duties  and  the  preparations  for  the 
comin/of  the  Committee  of  Twenty-One,  work  shared  with  Dr.  Malt- 
bie had  to  be  attended  to.  The  tour  of  the  committee,  beginning  at 
Dublin  May  29,  took  up  nearly  a  month  on  the  way  to  London,  where 
several  weeks  in  July  were  spent  in  visiting  plants,  interviewing  man- 
agers and  others,  and  holding  committee  meetings.  Professor  Com- 
mons, whose  time  on  this  tour  was  much  occupied  by  general  commit- 
tee work,  made  a  second  trip  to  Leicester,  Sheffield,  Newcastle,  Glas- 
gow, Manchester  and  Liverpool  late  in  July,  while  Mr.  Sullivan  with 
Dr  Maltbie  finished  up  the  Commission's  business  in  London,  finally 
himself  after  Dr.  Maltbie's  departure,  attending  to  the  details  of  clos- 
ing the  offices  and  bringing  the  outside  work  and  interchange  of  civili- 
ties to  an  end.  Mr.  Sullivan's  stay  in  Great  Britain  was  five  months, 
of  which  but  the  smaller  part  could  be  allotted  to  the  labor  inquiry. 
Professor  Commons,  being  detained  in  August  and  September  at  the 
Wisconsin  University,  arranged  with  the  Committee  of  Five  that  Mr. 
Sullivan  alone  should  visit  the  American  cities.  Accordingly  the  latter, 
Between  August  13,  the  date  of  his  arrival  in  New  York,  and  Septem- 
ber 30,  went  to  South  Norwalk,  New  Haven,  Syracuse,  Allegheny, 
Wheeling,  Cleveland,  Detroit,  Indianapolis  and  Chicago,  thence  pro- 
ceeding to  Madison,  where  he  and  Professor  Commons  discussed  the 
data  the  two  had  collected  together  and  separately  and  worked  on  their 
joint  report  until  October  26.  Between  November  4  and  December  15 
Professor  Commons  visited  Chicago,  Indianapolis,  Detroit,  Syracuse, 
Wheeling  and  Allegheny,  reviewing  Mr.  Sullivan's  investigations.  Work 
of  the  twojabor  investigators  on  the  text  of  their  report  was  done  in 
New  York  together  December  20-22,  while  tabulating  the  wages  returns, 
proof-reading  and  the  insertion  of  additional  matter,  with  the  corre- 
spondence over  it,  took  four  months  more. 

"Of  the  twenty  undertakings  in  America  selected  by  the  Committee 
of  Five,  those  in  Norfolk,  Utica,  Geneva,  Toledo  and  Pittsburg  were 
not  investigated.  The  method  pursued  in  each  city  visited  was  one 
adapted  to  the  time  at  the  disposal  of  the  investigator,  or  both.  Usually 
a  schedule  was  filled  out  during  interviews  with  managers  or  other  offi- 
cials, or  in  some  cases  given  them  to  be  written  up,  and  inquiries  there- 
upon suggested  put  to  them,  after  which  the  leaders  of  the  trade 
unions  represented  in  the  plants  or  the  Central  Labor  Union  officers 
were  seen,  as  also  city  officials  and  such  citizens  possessing  informa- 
tion as  might  easily  be  reached.  While  the  restrictions  of  time  occa- 
sionally limited  the  search  for  bottom  facts  in  regard  to  controverted 
statements,  the  investigators  believe  that  they  have  obtained  the  evi- 
dence essential  to  intelligent  conclusions  with  respect  to  the  part  as- 
signed them  in  the  general  inquiry." 

IV. 

One  of  my  returns  of  facts  ignored  by  Investigator  Commons 
was  a  tabular  statement  of  the  increase  in  wages  and  reduction  in 
hours  of  about  one  hundred  unions  among  the  organized  motormen 
and  conductors  of  America.  It  would  have  established  the  point  I 
advanced  (page  63)  in  my  review  as  to  the  improvement  in  labor 
conditions  being  much  more  marked  under  street-car  companies  in 


28  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

America  than  under  municipal  tramway  departments  in  Britain. 
This  table,  as  designed  by  me,  was  drawn  up  by  a  university  stu- 
dent at  Madison  from  printed  material  given  me  at  the  general 
offices  in  Detroit  of  the  Amalgamated  Street  Railway  Employees  of 
America,  and  it  was  later  verified  and  additions  were  made  to 
it  in  the  same  offices,  under  President  W.  D.  Hahon's  in- 
structions. It  showed  at  a  glance  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
changes  for  the  better  that  has  ever  taken  place  in  any  occupation, 
and  it  completely  did  away  with  any  claim  that  municipal  owner- 
ship was  necessary  in  the  United  States  to  improve  the  well  being 
of  street-car  employees,  or,  consequently,  any  class  of  employees 
organizable  in  unions.  With  this  table  in  his  possession,  as  well  as 
the  tables  for  British  tramways  to  be  compared  with  it,  Investigator 
Commons,  knowing  I  was  anxious  to  get  it,  or  part  of  it,  in  the 
report  anywhere,  saw  that  it  was  left  out  and  then  wrote  (page  109) 
in  his  review:  "The  private  [tramway]  companies  [of  Great  Brit- 
ain], although  paying  less  than  the  municipalities,  have  also  ad- 
vanced their  rates  of  pay  with  the  introduction  of  electrical  trac- 
tion. The  same  is  true  of  the  traction  companies  in  the  United 
States,  although  our  investigations  have  not  included  a  survey  of 
these  companies,  and  we  are  unable  to  make  a  statistical  compari- 
son." 

The  desire  for  prevarication  of  Investigator  Commons  in  this 
case  becomes  even  more  astonishing  when  it  is  known  that  I  had 
directed  his  attention  to  a  report  on  "Street  Railway  Employment 
in  the  United  States,"  in  the  March,  1905,  "Bulletin"  of  the  Na- 
tional Department  of  Labor,  which  took  up  98  of  the  closely 
printed  pages  of  that  publication.  I  had  compared  President 
Mahon's  figures  with  the  wage  statistics  of  this  report,  the  result 
being  that  the  two  sets  were  near  enough  alike  to  confirm  those 
from  the  unions  in  general.  Investigator  Commons  had  before  him 
both  the  Labor  Bureau  statistics  of  wages  and  the  union's  table  of 
comparative  wages,  and  ignored  them ;  but  to  make  the  point  in  his 
review  (page  106)  that  the  British  Tramway  and  Vehicle  Drivers' 
Union  contained  a  larger  proportion  of  tramway  men  in  the  muni- 
cipal undertakings  than  the  American  Amalgamated  Association 
had  members,  he  promptly  found  in  the  same  Labor  Bureau  article 
statistics  for  1902  that  suited  his  purpose.  The  author,  however, 
said  that  the  union  claimed  70,000  members;  that  it  was  difficult 
to  arrive  at  the  exact  membership,  but  that  payments  of  monthly 
assessments  for  six  months  would  indicate  the  36,000  members. 
Points  to  be  noted  are :  The  British  union  takes  in  vehicle  drivers 
(who  in  America  go  into  the  teamsters'  union),  and  all  the  work- 
men connected  with  tramway  undertakings,  while  the  Amalga- 
mated's  membership  in  man}*  places  is  almost  solidly  motormen 
and  conductors. 

V. 

Page  896,  Part  II,  Vol.  I,  our  joint  report,  questions  5  to  10, 
inclusive,  with  their  answers,  were  omitted  by  Investigator  Com- 
mons. He  says  in  the  introduction  he  wrote,  page  885,  that  the 
brief  schedule  answers  were  "not  adequate."  Complete,  with  the 
answers,  they  are  in  my  manuscript  as  I  made  it  up  from  the 
separate  schedules,  and  they  are  in  a  typewritten  copy  I  have  of  it. 


MATTER  OMITTED.  29 

These  questions,  with  some  of  the  answers  relating  to  municipal 
undertakings,  are  as  follows :  Question  5 :  "Have  the  votes  of  em- 
ployees affected  city  elections?"  Cleveland,  reply  by  Superinten- 
dent of  Water  Works — "The  present  administration  is  undoubt- 
edly supported  by  the  body  of  city  employees."  Richmond — "Not 
in  gas.  Said  to  do  in  Police  and  Fire  Departments."  Allegheny 
(Williams) — "All  work  for  the  men  to  whom  they  are  under  obli- 
gations for  their  appointment."  Question  6:  "Have  they  used 
political  power  to  secure  higher  wages,  fewer  hours,  etc.  ?"  Syra- 
cuse— "As  a  body,  no;  individuals  exert  an  influence."  Allegheny 
(Williams) — "Yes";  (method  explained).  Wheeling — Secretary: 
"Only  way  to  get  higher  wages  and  less  hours."  Question  7 :  "Have 
candidates  for  office  promised  higher  wages,  better  hours,  etc.,  for 
employees?"  Wheeling — Secretary:  "All  do  it."  Chicago — 
Water  (bureau  official)  :  "Candidates  are  at  liberty  to  make  prom- 
ises." Question  8 :  "Are  employees  active  in  party  work  ?"  Cleve- 
land— Superintendent:  "A  minority  are."  Syracuse — "Some  are; 
party  activity  is  to  be  expected."  Question  9 :  "Are  they  expected 
or  required  to  pay  political  assessments?"  Syracuse,  Allegheny, 
Wheeling — "A  percentage,  or  two  per  cent."  Cleveland — "No; 
the  superintendent  supposes  many  contribute,  but  does  not  know 
who  does."  Detroit — Employee  of  another  city  department:  "The 
list  is  sent  around  in  other  departments;  'not  compulsory/  the  col- 
lectors say."  Question  10 :  "What  evidence  is  there  of  the  influence 
of  private  companies  upon  the  nomination  and  election  of  mem- 
bers of  the  franchise-granting  and  franchise-controlling  authori- 
ties?" Seven  out  of  eight  replies  was  that  there  was  no  such  evi- 
dence ;  the  eighth  was  "no  reply." 

Had  such  admissions  been  made  by  the  managers  of  com- 
panies, instead  of  municipal  undertakings,  would  Investigator  Com- 
mons have  found  them  "adequate"  for  the  schedules  as  printed  ? 

VI. 

While  I  was  in  Madison  in  October,  1906,  I  wrote  for  our 
joint  report  a  chapter  entitled  "Working  Class  Conditions."  This 
I  submitted  in  the  manuscript  to  Investigator  Commons,  saying 
that  it  seemed  to  me  that  the  contrasting  social  environments  of 
American  and  British  workingmen  ought  to  be  given  some  notice 
in  our  report,  but  he  might  deem  what  I  had  written,  in  part  or 
as  a  whole,  as  exceeding  our  instructions  from  the  Committee  of 
Five.  When  in  a  day  or  two  he  returned  the  chapter  to  me  he  said : 
"This  is  all  right,"  with  a  stronger  show  of  approval  than  I  had 
expected.  Thenceforth  1  regarded  the  chapter  as  accepted  for  our 
report.  It  was  put  in  type  in  New  York.  But  in  December  my 
colleague,  without  giving  reasons  for  his  change  of  mind,  wrote 
me  that  he  would  not  accept  it.  I  decided  then  to  print  it  after 
our  joint  report  on  the  facts,  with  its  separate  chapter  heading  and 
author's  name-line.  In  a  letter  to  Investigator  Commons,  written 
March  21,  one  of  the  last  I  sent  him,  I  made  special  mention  that 
"Working  Class  Conditions"  and  my  review  were  separate  chapters. 
What  he  did  in  the  matter  is  shown  in  the  following  letter  from 
me  to  the  editor  of  the  reports : 


30  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

Rome,  Thursday,  November  28,  1907. 
Dear  Maltbie — 

Page-proofs  33  to  192  came  last  Monday.  These  are  the  first  cor- 
rected proofs  I  have  seen  of  Professor  Commons'  review  or  my  own.  An 
uncorrected  copy  of  each  reached  me  September  1.  Previously,  my 
only  knowledge  of  Professor  Commons'  strictures  relative  to  my  review 
was  gained  from  an  extract  in  the  Tribune  in  July.  I  note  that  Pro- 
fessor Commons  has  inserted  in  these  page-proofs  a  considerable  addi- 
tion to  his  personalities. 

I  see  that  you  (or  your  substitute  as  editor)  have  made  up  my 
"Working  Class  Conditions"  as  part  of  my  review,  with  a  sub-heading. 
This  was  never  my  intention  and  is  misleading  to  the  reader.  That 
chapter  was  written  for  the  Labor  Report,  months  before  I  wrote  my 
review.  It  had  in  my  manuscript  a  distinct  chapter  heading,  while  my 
review  had"  no  sub-headings.  It  was  in  my  proof  cut  off  from  my  re- 
view by  dash  lines,  had  under  it  the  author's  line  ("By  J.  W.  Sulli- 
van ")  and  had  a  heading  in  large  capitals,  all  signifying  that  it  was  a 
chapter  by  itself.  I  intended  it  as  no  more  than  a  setting  forth  of  im- 
pressions gained  from  passing  personal  observation  and  from  a  variety 
of  sources  apart  from  the  specific  and  sifted  testimony  called  for  in 
our  schedule  queries.  That  such  was  its  nature  the  reader,  prompted 
by  what  I  now7  write,  may  be  convinced  through  taking  account  of  my 
warnings  in  it  as  to  the  difficulties  of  arriving  at  accuracy  in  thus  sur- 
veving  so  broad  a  field.  Had  I  seen  a  page-proof  of  this  matter  as  it 
came  from  the  editor's  hand,  before  it  went  to  press,  I  would  have 
restored  this  chapter  to  its  original  form  as  to  headings,  author's  line, 
etc  and  asked  to  have  it  made  up  apart  from  my  review.  My  manu- 
script as  you  will  remember,  I  edited  as  I  expected  it  to  be  followed 
by  the  compositor,  with  even  the  type  for  headings  particularized. 
But  on  your  explanation  that,  answerable  as  you  were  for  typographi- 
cal unity,  you  could  hardly  promise  compliance,  I  withdrew  this  re- 
quest. I  since  have  written  you,  in  reply  to  queries  in  your  letter  of 
July  6,  that  I  would  leave  to  you  the  placing  of  my  matter  in  the 
General  Report,  but  it  did  not  occur  to  me  that  you  might  so  run  them 
together  as  to  efface  the  distinction  between  my  two  papers.  Could  I 
have  foreseen  their  mingling,  or  had  a  look  at  the  page-proofs  in  time, 
I  know  you  would  have  helped  me  in  preventing  this  error.  In  your 
letter  of*  July  6  you  said:  "After  consultation  with  Commons  I  have 
printed  what  you  have  to  say  on  'Working  Class  Conditions'  imme- 
diately following  the  other  matter  you  wrote."  This  is  a  pregnant  sen- 
tence as  I  read  it  now.  Professor  Commons,  it  seems,  knew  just  how 
it  was  to  be  made  up,  and  it  suited  him.  You  write  as  if  you  regarded 
it  as  separate  matter  from  my  review.  I  inferred  it  was  to  follow  the 
review,  but  as  a  separate  chapter. 

I  could  pass  this  matter  over  with  less  talk  about  it  did  it  not  give 
some  apjarent  support  to  Professor  Commons'  reference,  in  his  addi- 
tional personalities,  to  "the  practice  of  my  colleague  in  going  outside 
the  matter  actually  investigated  by  us."  I  have  just  looked  over  my 
review  proper,  printed  before  the  heading  "Working  Class  Conditions," 
to  find  any  possible  evidence  on  wrhich  it  might  justly  be  said  I  pursued 
such  a  practice.  To  my  mind  there  is  none.  Professor  Commons  knew 
that  "Working  Class  Conditions"  was  no  part  of  my  review.  He  saw 
that  paper  when  it  was  written,  months  before  I  wrote  my  review,  as 
I  have  s  lid,  and  accepted  it  as  a  chapter  of  our  joint  "Labor  Report," 
but  later  refused  to  stand  by  this  acceptance.  The  one  quotation  in  my 
review  giving  rise  to  his  fresh  assault  on  rne  was  sent  to  me  as  I  was 
closing,  and  I  inserted  it  subject  to  final  correction  in  the  proof,  or  pre- 
viously, by  him  or  myself,  in  the  light  of  further  facts  coming  to  either 
of  us.  My  use  of  its  statements  was  obviously  only  in  -the  measure  of 
its  accredited  source.  It  made  points  that  deserved  to  be  brought  out, 
as  they  were  sure  to  be  some  time.  Had  a  carbon  copy  of  Professor 
Commons'  comments  on  this  quotation  been  sent  me,  in  observance 
with  the  courtesies  prevailing  among  all  the  other  investigators,  or  if 
a  proof  of  (hem  had  been  forwarded  to  me  from  your  office  when  they 
were  recently  added  to  his  matter,  I  would  of  course  have  adopted  the 
Glasgow  managers'  corrections.  While  they  modify  in  a  degree  the 
Socialist's  statements  I  quoted,  they  confirm  the  substantial  truth  of 
his  complaint. 


A   PROTEST.  31 

The  rest  of  Professor  Commons'  personalities  I  shall  fully  deal 
with — to  his  satisfaction— in  a  paper  I  have  in  preparation. 

If  there  is  any  part  of  the  General  Report  yet  imprinted  I  should 
like  to  have  you  insert  this  letter  in  it — anywhere  so  it  gets  in.  It  is 
my  right  to  have  the  public  notified  in  the  Report  that  I  protested  at 
the  earliest  possible  moment  against  Professor  Commons'  first  attack 
on  me,  and  that  I  again  protest  against  this  further  attack  of  which  I 
have  just  learned.  I  intend,  in  good  time,  to  present  my  side  of  a 
public  personal  controversy  which  up  to  the  present  has  been  wholly 
one-sided  and  which  I  would  have  endeavored  to  prevent  by  every  hon- 
orable effort  had  a  duplicate  copy  of  Professor  Commons'  manuscript 
ever  been  sent  me,  or  a  proof  of  his  review  been  seen  by  me  before  it 
went  to  the  public. 

The  failure  to  reach  me  of  the  proof  you  believe  must  have  been 
mailed  for  me  from  your  secretary's  office  when  the  proofs  were  sent 
to  the  Committee  of  Twenty-One  cannot  be  positively  attributed  to  mis- 
carriage in  the  mails.  So  far  as  I  am  aware  not  a  single  letter  or 
newspaper  properly  addressed  to  me  or  my  wife  has  missed  either  of 
us  since  we  left  Xew  York,  nearly  eight  months  ago.  I  have  one  per- 
manent European  address.  Your  secretary,  or  an  assistant,  may  have 
mailed  a  proof  to  one  of  my  former  American  addresses,  of  which  I 
had  three  in  New  York.  At  two  of  these  miscellaneous  printed  matter 
addressed  to  me  takes  its  fate  with  literally  heaps  of  newspapers  and 
the  like  handed  by  the  postman  to  office  help  every  day. 

If  you  have  retained  my  letters  to  you  written  last  spring  and  sum- 
mer they  will  remind  you  what  I  wrote  you  then  regretting  that  I  had 
not  yet  received  Professor  Commons'  review,  of  which  I  was  in  expec- 
tation every  week,  and  saying,  in  effect,  that  he  and  I  had  been  pre- 
viously enabled  through  discussion  to  reconcile  seeming  differences  in 
statement  or  avoid  offensiveness  in  expressions  of  opinion.  My  review 
was  written  in  the  expectation  of  a  continuance  of  reasonable  consul- 
tation between  us.  I  looked  for  any  criticism  of  it  in  Professor  Com- 
mons' review  to  reach  me  before  any  one  else,  that  I  might  have  op- 
portunity of  reconsidering  my  expressions,  or  even  certain  conclusions, 
if  the  ends  of  peace  and  reason  could  be  reached  while  principle  should 
be  observed.  Had  the  professor  seen  to  it  that  my  expectations  in  this 
regard  were  realized,  instead  of  going  into  print  in  the  newspapers  in 
my  absence,  long  before  I  knew  what  he  was  about,  I  might  have  ren- 
dered him  a  service  in  bringing  his  criticisms  of  me  more  nearly  in  line 
with  accuracy  and  wisdom.  This  task  is  yet  before  me.  I  shall  make 
clean  work  of  it,  I  promise,  as  sure  as  I  live. 

Yours  truly,  J.    W.    SULLIVAN. 

MANCEUVRING    TO    EVADE    INSTRUCTIONS    AND    BRING 
IN    UNVERIFIABLE    ONE-SIDED    TESTIMONY. 

One  example  of  Investigator  Commons7  fine  play  in  the  Me- 
phistophelian  art  of  manoeuvring  deserves  a  chapter  of  itself.  The 
entire  plot,  in  its  beautifully  sinister  unfolding,  forms  a  model  for 
Belasco. 

'The  weeks  we  were  collating  our  notes  in  London  before  sepa- 
rating was  a  season  of  good  will  among  experts  and  Commissioners 
alike.  We  were  made  to  feel  that  all  hands  were  working  together 
in  fine  spirit,  with  truth  the  common  aim,  notwithstanding  our 
theories.  One  day,  profiting  by  this  situation,  Investigator  Com- 
mons informed  me  that  as  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  that  year 
to  spare  further  time  in  traveling  for  the  Commission,  he  had 
decided,  after  consulting  with  Professor  Bemis  and  others  among 
our  municipalist  members,  to  ask  me  to  finish  the  labor  investiga- 
tion in  America  alone.  I  strongly  objected  to  the  proposal.  The 
instructions  of  the  Five,  issued  after  considering  the  rights  of  all 
parties,  required  the  investigators  to  travel  in  balanced  pairs.  In 
going  alone  to  the  ten  or  twelve  remaining  undertakings  in  the 


32  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

American  cities  on  our  list,  I  should  run  many  risks,  certainly  of 
misunderstandings,  if  nothing  more  serious.  The  work  ought  not 
to  be  one-sided.  Investigator  Commons  argued  that  he  would  trust 
me  to  do  justice  to  both  sides ;  he  would  accept  what  I  should  re- 
port. I  tried  to  avoid  the  prospect  by  proposing  to  quit  the  Com- 
mission and  remain  abroad.  From  this  I  was  dissuaded  througli 
the  remonstrances  of  certain  of  the  Commissioners.  Some  days 
after  I  had  assented  to  the  arrangement,  and  just  before  the  party 
broke  up,  Investigator  Commons  casually  remarked  that,  as  he 
had  a  week  or  two  yet  before  his  vessel  sailed,  he  would  go  to 
Leicester  and  Glasgow,  and  perhaps  Sheffield,  to  "check  up"  certain 
unsettled  points.  As  he  had  just  manifested  implicit  confidence  in 
me,  I  could  hardly  stand  on  my  right  to  accompany  him,  as  was  in 
strictness  my  duty.  He  went.  He  never  voluntarily  told  me  just 
where.  Questioning  him  in  Madison  in  October,  I  brought  him  to 
admit  that  he  had  gone  back  to  all  our  British  cities,  except  Dublin 
and  Norwich.  And  from  the  form  he  had  meantime  given  our 
joint  British  report  I  saw  that  no  small  part  of  his  efforts  had 
tended  to  minimize  points  unfavorable  to  municipal  ownership 
that  I  had  brought  to  light.  He  had  seen  men,  mostly  pro-muni- 
cipalists,  notes  of  whose  expressions  in  speeches  or  interviews 
weighing  against  municipal  ownership  I  had  taken,  and  wrestled 
with  them  to  find  reasons  for  them  to  modify  or  recant.  Among  the 
men  he  had  thus  looked  up  were  ex-Councillor  Holmes  of  Leices- 
ter, Councillor  Bailey  of  Sheffield,  Labor  Secretary  Fox  of  Man- 
chester, Councillor  Sexton  of  Liverpool,  Organizer  Da  vies  of  th? 
Scottish  Municipal  Employees'  Association,  and  the  Glasgow  Labor 
Councillors  whose  speeches  denouncing  influence  in  appointments 
I  heard  in  Council,  April  5.  Where  Investigator  Commons  failed 
to  induce  some  of  these  men  to  change  their  statements  he  found 
something  wrong  with  their  character.  In  Madison,  on  gradually 
taking  cognizance  of  this  neat  piece  of  Hummel  work,  I  regarded 
it  in  silent  contemplation. 

At  a  session  of  the  Five,  the  week  of  my  arrival  in  New  York 
in  August,  Professor  Bends,  on  hearing  mention  of  my  approach- 
ing journey  to  investigate  the  American  undertakings  alone,  dis- 
played some  anxiety.  He  could  only  consent  to  it,  he  presently 
announced,  provided  that  Investigator  Commons,  after  the  conclu- 
sion of  my  work  in  any  city,  might  be  free  to  pay  it  a  visit  to  verify 
or  amplify  my  report  in  the  interests  of  the  pro-municipalist  side. 
Had  this  plan  been  proposed  in  London  I  would  not  have  con- 
sented to  it ;  had  it  been  said  that  Investigator  Commons  could  find 
time  to  follow  me,  I  could  have  replied  that  I  would  await  his  con- 
venience to  accompany  me.  But  I  was  now  on  the  eve  of  starting ; 
the  meeting  of  the  Twenty-One  to  receive  the  reports  was  appointed 
for  November;  the!  labor  investigation  had  to  be  hurried  on  if  it 
was  to  be  done  at  all.  I  could  but  say  aye  to  Professor  Bemis* 
proposal  without  bringing  up  any  profitless  question  as  to  the  truth 
of  Investigator  Commons'  assurance  to  me  in  London  that  Pro- 
fessor Bemis  was  with  him  in  suggesting  to  me  the  original  plan. 

I  finished  my  task  of  visiting  the  American  cities  alone  in  six 
weeks  of  continuous  labor  during  a  long  heated  term.  My  find- 
ings, especially  those  against  the  municipal  undertakings,  I  made 


MANOEUVRING.  33 

known  by  letter  from  place  to  place  to  Investigator  Commons. 
Pushing  on  to  Madison,  my  work  of  nearly  four  weeks  there  with 
my  colleague  brought  the  date  of  my  departure  for  New  York  to 
the  last  week  of  October.  Then,  promptly  on  November  4,  Inves- 
tigator Commons  set  out,  with  my  full  written  report  in  his  pos- 
session, and  during  the  next  six  weeks  went  to  all  the  cities  of  my 
route,  except  New  Haven,  "checking  me  up."  He  alleges  he  also 
got  together  on  this  trip  his  stories  relating  to  political  irregulari- 
ties in  these  cities  involving  companies  not  on  our  list  for  investi- 
gation. 

The  facts  I  had  unearthed  regarding  the  political  degradation 
of  municipal  ownership  at  the  Syracuse  water  works,  the  Allegheny 
and  Detroit  electric  lighting  stations,  and  the  Wheeling  gas  works 
Investigator  Commons  found  no  reason  to  contradict  in  any  but 
small  particulars.  He  naturally  made  in  regard  to  these  under- 
takings some  additions  easily  possible  even  to  a  novice  if  provided 
with  my  report  and  unused  notes  and  with  ample  time  at  his  dis- 
posal. 

During  the  six  weeks  of  this  tour  of  Investigator  Commons  I 
was  awaiting  word  from  him  in  New  York  in  the  dark.  I  could 
not  find  out  from  any  one  where  he  was.  I  could  have  joined  him 
in  his  sleuth  work  on  the  companies  had  he  let  me  know  what  he 
was  doing  and  had  I  judged  his  diversions  legitimate.  Or  I  could 
have  asked  the  Committee  of  Five  to  pass  upon  the  regularity  of 
his  proceedings.  But  his  game  was  to  lie  low.  We  met  at  length' 
in  Philadelphia,  December  12,  while  revisiting  with  other  Commis-^ 
si  oners  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Company's  works.  I  next 
saw  him  in  New  York  December  20-  He  had  meantime  worked 
over  parts  of  my  report,  fitting  into  them  his  new  matter.  He  gave 
me  the  manuscript  in  bulk.  On  reading  it  that  night  I  gained  my 
first  knowledge  of  his  extraordinary  discoveries  regarding  com- 
panies not  on  our  list  for  investigation  that  he  had  written  up  as  a 
set-off  to  my  disastrous  report  on  municipal  undertakings  that 
were  on  our  list. 

We  had  one  brief  interview  on  the  subject  before  he  took  a 
train  for  his  Christmas  at  Madison.  I  told  him  I  could  not  accept 
off-hand  what  he  had  written  about  the  companies.  They  were  not 
on  the  list.  I  knew  nothing  whatever  of  my  own  knowledge  about 
them.  I  had  heard  none  of  this  talk  about  their  campaign  contri- 
butions and  the  like.  He  said  he  would  confidentially  give  me,  and 
if  necessary  the  Chairman  of  the  Five,  the  names  of  the  authorities 
for  his  statements.  I  asked  if  his  informants  would  tell  me  what 
they  had  told  him.  That,  he  said,  could  hardly  be  expected.  I  rep- 
resented to  him  that,  besides  relating  to  men  and  undertakings  not 
on  our  list,  and  the  statements  coming  only  to  him  through  secret 
channels,  what  he  had  written  regarding  one  company,  if  not 
others,  was  in  my  judgment  libelous.  His  whole  proceeding  had 
been  unknown  to  me,  unforeseen,  surprising,  and  aside  from  out 
proper  duties  as  therefore  performed.  But  he  was  in  a  hurry  to  get 
ready  for  his  journey,  and  our  verbal  consultations  over  the  matter 
came  to  an  inconclusive  end.  I  have  not  seen  him  since.  We  had 
no  clash.  My  demeanor  with  him  on  the  occasion  went  further 
than  reasonableness;  in  every  earnest  way  I  could  command  I  rnani- 


34  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

tested  a  desire  not  only  to  accord  to  him  everything  he  could  claim 
under  his  rights,  but  to  keep  in  yiew  our  project  of  a  joint  report  on 
the  facts. 

My  observations  of  Investigator  Commons'  demeanor  at  the  de- 
nouement at  this  interview  would  tend  to  confirm  a  conception  of 
the  psychological  dramatists  of  the  current  day.  The  old  notion 
of  the  character  in  the  cast  who  represents  the  spirit  of  disloyalty 
was  that  of  a  man  of  coolness  and  nerve,  self-possessed,  speaking  his 
untruths  unabashed  and  with  measured  fluency.  Not  so.  The 
plotter  against  the  truth  in  the  presence  of  transparent  and  stoutly 
defended  truth  is  by  turns  in  speech  reticent  and  abruptly  dogmatic 
and  incoherent,  in  manner  nervously  watchful  and  abstract  and 
hangdog.  His  studied  words  are  contradicted  by  the  uncontrolla- 
ble working  of  the  muscles  about  his  eyes  and  mouth,  and  the  fleet- 
ing ashiness  and  purple  suffusion  of  his  face.  He  wants  to  get 
away. 

The  libelous  matter  was  omitted  after  being  given  to  the  Five 
and  referred  to  its  Chairman ;  I  put  a  footnote  to  Investigator  Com- 
mons' Wheeling  matter  regarding  companies  saying  that  statements 
as  to  the  political  situation  in  that  city,  aside  from  what  related  to 
the  municipal  gas  undertaking,  were  his,  and,  still  striving  for  a 
joint  report  as  to  facts,  I  stretched  a  point  and  let  his  gossip  about 
the  Syracuse  and  Allegheny  companies  pass.  I  see  that  (page  94) 
he  has  surreptitiously  introduced  in  his  review  a  passage  directed 
against  the  New  Haven  company  which  was  not  in  the  proof  slips 
submitted  to  the  Twenty-One.  His  unauthenticated  statements 
against  the  companies  not  on  our  list  are  quoted  by  other  pro-mu- 
nicipal Commissioners  in  their  summaries  with  the  respect  due  to 
testimony  and  verdict  from  a  university  professor. 

Just  at  what  point  Investigator  Commons  might  have  seen  his 
way  thus  to  stack  the  cards  only  circumstantial  evidence  can  show. 
Perhaps  the  germ  of  the  trick  found  lodgment  in  his  mind  when  I 
first  showed  myself  disposed  to  confide  in  his  honor.  He  early  saw 
I  Was  not  to  be  a  stickler  in  a  small  way  for  the  rights  of  the  anti- 
municipal  side.  This  I  made  clear  to  him  toward  the  close  of  our 
first  tour  together  as  investigators,  mention  of  which  now  finds 
place. 

Between  January  16  and  February  10,  1906,  Investigator  Com- 
mons and  I  visited  the  gas  undertakings  of  Philadelphia,  Eichmond, 
and  Atlanta,  and  the  electricity  works  of  Allegheny.  Our  findings 
were  continuously  disheartening  to  Investigator  Commons.  The 
pay,  hours,  working  conditions  and  welfare  and  beneficial  provisions 
of  the  United  Gas  Improvement  Company  in  Philadelphia  were  all 
above  criticism.  The  score  of  trade  union  officials  and  others  we 
interviewed  in  Philadelphia  (whose  names  are  in  my  note  books) 
had  nothing  to  say  against  the  company  except  that  by  giving  more 
to  its  employees  than  the  unions  demanded,  and  better  conditions 
than  the  municipality,  it  had  carried  its  force  beyond  possibly  or- 
ganizable  territory,  especially  in  view  of  the  poor  development  oi 
the  unions  in  Philadelphia  represented  in  the  gas  industry.  At  tlie 
Eichmond  municipal  gas  works  we  found  high  wages  for  the  white 
stokers  and  meter  readers,  and  ordinary  contractors'  wages  for  the 
black  ditch  diggers  in  an  undertaking  that  was  a  butt  of  ridicule 
among  the  gas  engineers  of  the  United  States.  Its  bad  service,  for 
years  growing  worse,  had  moved  the  City  Council  to  employ  a  New 


UNVERIFIED    STORIES.  35 

York  gas  expert  to  examine  the  plant,  and  he  had  just  reported 
that  to  put  the  works,  mains  and  accessories  in  good  workable  con- 
dition would  cost  more  than  half  a  million  dollars.  In  Atlanta  we 
found  the  gas  company's  wages  and  conditions  for  the  black  labor- 
ers better  than  those  for  the  municipality's  black  employees,  while 
wages  for  the  white  skilled  men,  all  points  considered,  were  about 
the  same  as  at  Eichmond  (joint  report,  pages  496-99).  The  under- 
taking, a  layman  could  see,  after  Eichmond,  was  in  a  state  of  the 
highest  efficiency.  At  Allegheny  we  found  the  municipal  lighting 
plant  the  plaything  of  politicians  and  a  joke  to  the  enemies  of 
civic  reform. 

Investigator  Commons  had  a  few  years  previously  been  inves- 
tigating for 'municipal  ownership  at  Eichmond  and  Allegheny,  and 
his  fellow-municipalists  were  still  writing  favorably  of  these  under- 
takings. He  came  to  the  investigation  of  the  four  cities  now  in 
question  possessed  of  alleged  data  he  had  gathered  as  a  writer  sup- 
porting municipal  ownership  with  a  university  library  at  his  com- 
mand. But  the  obvious  state  of  facts  we  fell  upon  converted  the 
beauties  of  municipal  ownership  in  each  case  into  a  mere  caricature 
of  the  picture  constantly  painted  for  the  public  by  its  apostles. 

Investigator  Commons  was  perplexed.  He  evidently  foresaw 
defeat  in  our  report.  I  sympathized  with  him.  In  his  depression, 
at  Atlanta  he  one  day  questioned  me  as  to  my  remedy  for  the  abuses 
of  municipal  monopoly.  I  outlined  my  ideas  of  a  just,  thorough, 
and  efficient  regulation.  I  went  on,  in  effect:  "While  you  and  I 
may  differ  as  to  remedies,  why  in  the  name  of  truth  should  we  dif- 
fer as  to  our  observed  facts?  You  hold  that  you  are  a  social  re- 
former, and  I  believe  I  am.  You  look  to  methods  I  regard  as  so- 
cialistic; I  to  methods  that  are  American.  I  would  simply  aim  to 
have  legalized  privilege  everywhere  abolished  or  brought  to  the 
possible  minimum.  This,  as  we  have  seen  at  Philadelphia,  can 
be  done  in  municipal  affairs  by  means  of  fair  contract  in  per- 
forming work  that,  involving  an  exclusive  occupancy  of  the 
streets,  is  the  community's  concern.  In  the  United  States  we  have 
examples  of  every  grade  of  work  by  capitalist  corporations  for  mu- 
nicipalities, from  barefaced  robbery  through  corruptly  obtained 
franchises  right  along  upward  to  honest  and  satisfactory  service  un- 
der franchises  that  stipulate  protection  of  public  interests.  If  you 
and  I  find  examples  of  the  latter  class  it  is  our  duty  to  point  to  them 
as  models  for  imitation.  Now,  so  far  as  our  investigation  has  pro- 
ceeded you  have  but  a  sorry  showing  for  municipal  operation.  The 
salient  facts  we  have  come  upon  are  not  the  facts  on  which  the 
followers  >of  your  movement  have  been  fed.  Up  to  the  present 
you  and  I  have  much  the  same  notes  and  schedules  and  copies  of 
reports  and  wage  tables.  It  would  honor  the  cause  of  unpartisan 
systematic  investigation  if  we  could  agree  on  a  report  as  to  facts, 
even  if  we  should  differ  in  tracing  out  their  significance.  I  pro- 
pose that  we  aim  at  an  agreement  on  the  facts,  so  far  as  possible, 
simply  pointing  out  the  exceptions  where  we  cannot  agree." 

The  response  was  a  monosyllabic  assent,  not  over-enthusiastic. 

This  proposal  of  mine  thenceforth  became  an  asset  among  the 
advantages  Investigator  Commons  worked  up  for  his  side.  When 
months  later  we  discussed  our  selections  for  publication  among  the 
superabundant  material  we  had  collected,  he  set  aside  considerable 


36  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

that  it  seemed  'to  me  might  indicate  a  trend  at  home  and  abroad 
against  municipal  ownership.  However,  as  he  was  obliged  to  make 
admissions  enough  to  give  ample  room  for  the  support  of  my  views 
on  principal  points,  I  waived  my  preferences. 

Investigator  Commons  next  had,  at  Madison,  the  three  months 
from  Feb.  10,  1906,  when  he  parted  with  me  in  Pittsburg,  until 
toward  the  end  of  May,  when  he  started  for  Europe,  to  lay  his  plans 
for  manoeuvring  to  counterbalance  our  sure  discrediting  of  the 
American  municipal  undertakings  we  had  seen  and  probably  of 
those  we  were  yet  to  see.  The  movement  for  municipal  ownership 
meantime  was  active  in  many  parts  of  the  country.  He  may  at 
this  time  have  got  hold  of  some  of  the  talk  about  the  companies 
that  the  next  winter  he  embodied  in  his  additions  to  our  report  as 
his  own  discoveries.  Or,  in  the  autumn,  while  during  my  own  trip 
I  kept  sending  him  additional  bad  accounts  regarding  the  American 
municipal  undertakings,  the  resultant  panic  may  have  brought  him 
to  seek  information  from  the  powerful  news  bureaus  in  various 
cities  of  -the  national  leaders  of  municipalism.  In  any  case,  consid- 
ering Investigator  Commons'  grade  of  veracity  to  be  what  we  now 
know  it,  evidence  more  convincing  than  his  word  is  necessary  to 
win  belief  that,  by  accident,  he  enjoyed,  in  just  the  cities  concerned, 
an  intimacy  with  the  only  men  who  could  impart  to  him,  confiden- 
tially, a  series  of  remarkable  stories  of  political  bribery  and  other 
malfeasance  in  which  they  themselves  were  first  among  the  guilty 
parties.  That  in  large  part  he  already  had  his  cards  up  his  sleeve 
when  he  proposed  in  London  I  should  visit  the  American  cities 
alone  is  highly  probable. 

In  preparing  what  I  wrote  of  our  American  report  in  Madison 
I' cited  by  name  my  authorities  on  points  that  might  be  justly  con- 
sidered beyond  our  certain  knowledge.  For  example,  I  gave,  witn 
their  permission,  the  names  of  the  responsible  persons  at  the  Syra- 
cuse, Wheeling  and  Allegheny  works  who  described  the  political  un- 
doing of  those  undertakings.  To  «this  candor  Investigator  Com- 
mons objected.  His  position  was  that  the  authors  of  the  report 
should  stand  responsible  for  its  contents.  I  brought  to  his  atten- 
tion statements  that  might  arouse  the  reader's  doubts,  or  give  rise 
to  controversy,  or  be  modified  by  us  ourselves  on  familiar  knowl- 
edge. Whatever  was  obvious  and  unquestionable  should  be  ours; 
but  on  important  debatable  matters  the  reader  was  entitled  to  his 
own  judgment  on  the  authorities.  We  as  investigators  should  halt 
at  the  borders  of  possible  non-fact.  Investigator  Commons  insisted 
that  our  writing  should  be  ex  cathedra.  He  had  his  own  reasons. 
He  was  coining  to  a  part  of  his  work  where  he  couldn't  publish  his 
authorities. 

It  is  clear  at  the  present  time  that  Investigator  Commons'  re- 
turns against  undertakings  not  on  our  list,  gathered  from  back- 
stairs sources,  ought  to  have  been  rejected  by  the  Committee  of 
Five.  This  I  ought  to  have  insisted  upon.  The  companies  did 
not  fall  within  our  inquiry.  The  undertakings  named  by  the  Five 
were  all  that  the  experts  or  the  labor  investigators  were  to  report 
upon.  The  chairman  of  the  Five  at  its  sessions  time  and  again 
warmly  advocated  a  restriction  of 'the  inquiry  to  the  questions  of  the 
schedule  and  queries  directly  arising  therefrom.  "No  hot  air !"  was 
his  admonition.  No  wandering  all  over  town  and  country  to 


REJECTED   TESTIMONY.  87 

make  points  for  or  against.  As  I  pushed  along  on  my  mission, 
without  a  single  tip  from  any  source  as  to  what  wrong  was  to  be 
found  at  the  municipal  undertakings,  advancing  from  the  slight 
and  perhaps  inadvertent  admissions  of  a  subordinate  to  the  full 
story  of  machine  rule  and  exploitation  of  a  city  administrative  bu- 
reau given  me  by  perhaps  the  tenth  official  I  interviewed,  it  never 
occurred  to  me  that  whispered  storks  of  wholly  different  forms  of 
public  wrongdoing  in  the  legislative  departments  of  the  same  mu- 
nicipalities might  serve  to  lessen  the  proof  that  municipal  operation 
of  productive  enterprises  had  been  found  to  be  economically  unsound 
and  a  permanent  opportunity  for  public  spoliation.  The  informa- 
tion I  gathered,  open  for  revision  by  my  colleague  and  all  the  Com- 
missioners, stands  in  contrast  with  Investigator  Commons'  easily 
manufactured  revelations,  the  sources  of  which  are  yet  shrouded  in 
mystery.  In  admitting  any  portion  of  his  barroom  lore  and  repro- 
ductions of  newspaper  political  campaign  froth  to  our  joint  report 
the  Five  erred.  I  myself  should  have  cut  away  from  every  word 
of  it  and  ended  my  cherished  plan  of  a  joint  report.  My  experi- 
ence in  this  case  has  shown  me  that  even  the  facts  of  the  addition 
table  may  be  distorted  by  an  observer  cranked  with  the  mental  twist 
of  a  fanatic. 

SOME    REJECTED    TESTIMONY— UNITED    STATES. 

Investigator  Commons  rejected  from  our  joint  report  the  fol- 
lowing interviews  and  other  passages,  which  were  in  my  typewritten 
manuscript  just  as  here  printed.  He  said  some  of  them  were  not 
admissible  as  within  the  range  of  the  facts  we  were  seeking ;  others 
he  omitted  in  rewriting  the  parts  of  my  manuscript  he  found  neces- 
sary to  reconstruct  after  his  visits  to  the  American  undertakings 
following  mine.  I  had  regarded  the  points  thus  brought  out  by 
me  worth  printing  if  authorities  were  given: 

"Secretary  Schenck  [Wheeling  municipal  gas  works]  said  to 
the  investigator,  who  wrote  down  the  statement  in  his  presence : 
'The  municipal  gas  works  in  Wheeling  are  a  dead  failure.  The 
works  themselves  are  in  a  dilapidated  condition,  and  the  manage- 
ment is  wholly  political.  I  do  not  care  to  hold  my  place,  as  it  is 
difficult  to  be  honest  in  it.  A  man  at  the  works  if  discharged  for 
unfitness  can  be  reinstated  the  same  day  if  he  has  a  pull.  Wages 
have  been  run  up  by  the  politicians  in  consequence  of  the  demands 
of  the  little  crowds  of  the  hands  joining  for  political  purposes. 
The  works  are  in  a  poor  state  in  every  way.  I'm  so  disgusted  with 
the  political  side  of  my  job  that  I'm  ready  to  throw  it  up  now, 
though  I  have  fifteen  months  to  serve  out  my  term.' '; 

"In  July,  1906,  the  [Wheeling]  chargers  were  receiving  $2  a 
day  and  the  stokers  $1.80.  Both  classes  demanded  an  advance  of 
40  cents  a  day.  The  events  that  ensued  were  thus  described  by  a 
colleague  of  Secretary  Schenck,  the  works  Superintendent :  'Those 
hottest  for  a  strike  were  made  committeemen.  First  they  went  to 
the  Council,  which  referred  them  to  the  Gas  Trustees,  who  asked 
advice  of  the  City  Solicitor,  getting  the  reply  that  they  .had  no  right 
to  increase  wages.  The  Council,  both  First  and  Second  Branches, 
with  the  Gas  Board,  offered  20  cents  as  a  compromise.  Next  day 
the  men  struck,  but  that  night  accepted  25  cents  as  the  advance  and 
went  back  to  work.'  'Politics/  continued  the  Superintendent,  'has 


^i?^. 

HE  \ 

UNIVERSITY  1 

or-  i 


OF  THE 


38  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

a  whole  lot  to  do  with  the  works.  The  men  get  out  among  Council- 
men  who  don't  want  their  ill  will  and  consequently  agitate  for 
them.  Of  course,  a  private  concern  could  get  the  work  done  for 
much  less/ '' 

"C.  H.  Watkins,  ex-City  Clerk,  Wheeling  (an  aged  veteran 
soldier,  retired  from  public  life,  well  spoken  of  by  all  who  men- 
tioned him)  :  'The  gas  works  are  steadily  going  down.  Politics 
governs  the  water  works,  public  works  and  gas  works.  When  in 
office  I  paid  $100  political  assessment.  All  the  officeholders  pay  it. 
I  retired  in  disgust  from  politics.  When  I  was  at  the  court  house 
the  gas  works  were  in  the  hands  of  politicians.' '' 

[In  Syracuse.]  "James  Horton,  secretary  of  the  District 
Council,  Brotherhood  of  Carpenters,  made  complaint  that  not  one 
of  the  men  in  the  water  works  bureau  was  a  unionist,  and  that  the 
only  way  for  a  wage  worker  to  get  a  job  was  through  political  in- 
fluence. .  .  .  Men  in  every  city  department  at  the  present 
time  have  sinecures  through  political  influence.  The  work  con- 
tracted for  is  done  under  union  conditions  only  when  the  union 
itself  establishes  them." 

"A  union  officer  explained  that  he  was  not  encouraged  to  help 
in  a  change  in  administration  inasmuch  as  when  J.  B.  Kline  was 
elected  Mayor  he  discharged  sixty  laborers  for  economy's  sake,  but 
raised  salaries  in  the  office  by  a  considerable  percentage." 

[In  Chicago.]  "An  official  of  Union  No.  134,  Electrical  Work- 
ers (interior  wiremen),  said  he  preferred  to  deal  with  companies 
rather  than  the  city.  His  opinion,  as  expressed,  was  that  'in  spite 
of  civil  service  they'll  get  your  scalp.'  He  regarded  the  City  Hall 
regulations  as  to  time-checking  over-exacting,  and  thought  the 
changing  of  Commissioners  affected  the  positions  of  the  rank  and 
file,  if  not  as  to  security  of  position,  in  permanency  of  location  >while 
at  work,  or  other  lesser  points.  .  .  .  The  Financial  Secretary 
of  Steam  Engineers,  No.  3,  when  interviewed,  spoke  of  abuses  under 
former  administrations  which  operated  to  the  disadvantage  of  his 
union  members,  especially  men  in  the  lake  cribs.  While  the  water 
bureau  paid  more  than  the  scale,  the  Fire  Department  paid  less. 
His  union  was  obliged  to  fight  the  city  to  obtain  union  observances. 
He  concluded:  'We  use  more  or  less  political  influence.'  The  Sec- 
retary of  the  Stationary  Firemen  said:  'We  go  before  the  Finance 
Committee  (which  makes  up  the  appropriations)  and  tell  them: 
"These  are  our  rates,"'  and  they  are  politicians  and  know  what 
to  do." 

[In  Allegheny.]  "Ex-Engineer  Williams  asked  the  investiga- 
tor to  write  this  down:  'I  am  resolved  never  again  to  hold  any 
position  in  a  municipal  plant.' '; 

"At  the  power  station  office  an  employee  said  to  the  investiga- 
tor: 'It  would  be  the  grandest  thing  in  the  world  if  politics  could 
be  kept  out  of  municipal  ownership.'  Mr.  Williams'  comment  on 
this  was :  'He's,  the  man  who  when  I  was  ousted  by  politics  took  my 
place  through  politics.' ": 

"Eobert  Dilworth,  City  Clerk,  while  being  asked  for  some  data 
by  the  investigator,  remarked  on  the  subject:  'The  city  can  do 
nothing  as  cheaply  and  well  as  private  enterprise.  Political  bosses 
really  run  the  bureaus  of  this  city.' ': 

'"The  President  of  the  Atlanta  Gas  Company,  speaking  of  the 


REJECTED    TESTIMONY.  39 

conditions  under  which  men  might  get  places  and  keep  them  with 
his  corporation,  said:  "The  employees  of  the  company  are  con- 
cerned only  as  to  their  merits  in  the  eyes  of  their  employers;  they 
get  their  places  without  political  influence  and  hold  them  regard- 
less of  changes  in  administration.  The  interests  of  retailers  or 
other  business  men  do  not  curtail  their  work.' '' 

"The  Atlanta  gas-works  officials,  in  all  departments,  said  that 
in  case  of  a  vacancy  to  be  filled  by  a  white  man  or  boy  there  arose 
with  the  company  no  other  question  than  competency  and  character. 
The  employees  had  no  concern  but  to  do  their  work  well." 

"The  Atlanta  trade  union  leaders  had  no  special  criticism  to 
make  of  the  company.  One  union  official  thought  that  if  it  were  to 
pay  $2  a  day  it  could  get  white  men  for  retort  house  work/' 

"The  South  Norwalk  works  are  of  about  the  same  type,  with 
respect  to  labor  employment,  as  ninety-three  per  cent  of  the  1,041 
municipal  electric  plants  in  existence  in  the  United  States  in  March, 
1906, — Of  this  total  160  being  in  villages  of  less  than  1,000  in  popu- 
lation and  808  in  towns  of  between  1,000  and  10,000.  .  .  .  The 
members  of  the  local  union,  recognizing  that  these  municipal  em- 
ployees are  not  actively  underbidding  them  in  the  labor  market, 
permit  the  works  to  occupy  unmolested  the  position  of — in  the 
words  of  the  superintendent — an  'independent  institution' — a  peace- 
ful haven  lying  out  of  the  swift  current  in  which  the  large  modern 
companies  move.  .  .  .  Illustration  of  the  differences  necessarily 
arising  between  labor  conditions  in  the  municipal  plants  of  smalt 
places  and  those  which  are  in  the  category  of  large  industries  may  be 
found  in  some  slight  comparison  between  the  South  Norwalk  and 
the  Allegheny,  Detroit,  and  Chicago  public  electric  works.  These 
three  latter,  which  have  been  investigated  by  our  Commission,  are 
among  the  twelve  municipal  undertakings  in  cities  of  the  United 
States  having  more  than  40,000  inhabitants.  In  each  of  the  three 
the  trade  union  had  asserted  itself.  In  Allegheny,  for  instance,  ac- 
cording to  the  testimony  of  the  ex-Assistant  Superintendent,  the 
local  electrical  workers'  union  prevents  political  assessments  on  its 
members.  In  Detroit,  years  ago,  the  trimmers  went  on  strike,  were 
defeated,  and  now  most  of  the  force  work  as  non-unionists.  In 
Chicago,  the  union's  representatives  wait  yearly  on  the  City  Elec- 
trician to  have  its  scale  signed.  There  is  no  union  recognition  of 
these  as  'independent  institutions.' '; 

From  my  notes  I  gave  Investigator  Commons  the  following 
brief  quotations  from  interviews: 

J.  H.  Gilmour,  of  Hamilton,  Scotland,  Fraternal  Delegate  to 
the  American  Federation  of  Labor  from  the  British  trade  unions, 
was  with  me  when,  by  questioning,  I  obtained  from  E.  H.  Williams, 
civil  engineer  of  the  Allegheny  municipal  electric  works,  his  first 
admissions  as  to  the  disgraceful  political  situation  there.  Investi- 
gator Commons,  who  was  with  us  at  the  beginning  of  the  conver- 
sation, soon  walked  away,  to  speak  to  the  Superintendent  about 
some  statistical  tables.  When  we  left  Mr.  Williams,  who  had  given 
the  political  aspect  of  municipal  ownership  anything  but  an  attrac- 
tive appearance,  Mr.  Gilmour  said:  "I  have  learned  more  in  the 
last  hour  about  the  deplorable  possibilities  of  municipal  ownership 
in  America  than  I  ever  got  from  all  other  sources  before.  I  am 
sure  that  the  usual  arguments  for  municipal  ownership  do  not  apply 


40  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

where  political  conditions  are  such  as  described  by  this -official  of  the 
works.  Your  first  municipal  problem  in  America  is  evidently  puri- 
fication. When  you  get  that  you  may  start  on  a  new  basis." 

An  employee  of  the  Eichmond  municipal  gas-works  said :  "Our 
business  methods  in  the  gas  department  are  bad.  The  connection 
between  the  financial  and  works  branches  is  unsettled.  We  simply 
move  through  a  routine,  and  make  no  effort  to  build  up  a  good 
business.  The  hardware  merchants  prevent  us  from  selling  gas 
stoves.  We  can't  fix  a  rental,  like  the  electric  light  company,  on  our 
own  unused  fixtures  in  a  house.  Any  consumer  can  start  a  howl 
that  will  tell  against  us,  and  we  have  no  protection.  We  have  little 
encouragement  to  do  good  work.  The  public  doesn't  know  any- 
thing about  the  gas  department ;  most  people  don't  know  where  the 
works  are.  They  have  no  interest  in  the  employees;  the  gas  com- 
mittee changes ;  the  City  Councilmen  don't  generally  know  the  char- 
ier provision  governing  the  city  gas  undertaking." 

In  every  case  these  views  or  experiences,  coming  from  men  in 
•daily  touch  with  municipal  ownership,  embodied  summaries  of  vital 
points,  given  with  positive  definiteness.  But  they  were  misfits  for  a 
report  built --on  the  pedagogic  plan.  They  told, 'however,  just  what 
the  average  inquirer  is  anxious  to  know,  at  the  very  outset  of  his 
looking  into  the  subject.  "What  are  the  wise  ones  saying  who  have 
been  through  the  mill  ?"  he  asks.  And  then  in  approaching  his  own 
conclusions  on  what  further  data  reach  him  he  feels  that  he  moves 
in  a  pathway  well  lighted. 

REJECTED    TESTIMONY— GREAT    BRITAIN. 

From  Great  Britain — of  the  same  import  as  the  previous  chap- 
ter. Interviews  I  obtained  indicating-  the  dangers  of  municipali- 
zation,  especially  to  the  integrity  of  unions  and  unionists : 

|  Xotes  from  several  interviews]  : 

"James  Dalrymple,  General  Manager,  Glasgow  Tramways: 
Favors  disfranchising  public  servants;  never  votes  himself;  does 
not  permit  his  employees  to  be  active  in  politics  (municipal)  ;  re- 
gards the  Municipal  Employees'  Association  as  'mischievous' ;  be- 
lieves in  and  supports  trade  unions.  The  Glasgow  tramway  service 
is  'open  shop.'  The  management  follows  the  market  rate  of  wages ; 
when  a  joiners'  strike  in  Glasgow  recently  failed,  the  corporation 
service  reduced  the  wages  of  its  joiners  %d.  an  hour,  though  its 
men  had  not  taken  part  in  the  strike." 

"  'A  shrewd  Secretary  of  the  M.  E.  A.,  a  man  big  enough  for 
the  purpose,  could  do  much  toward  making  the  Glasgow  municipal 
employees  a  political  force ;  here  is  possibly  a  menace.'  r' 

"  'Councilmen  constantly  recommend  men  for  work ;  the  man- 
ager exercises  his  own  judgment;  individual  Councilmen  will  rec- 
ommend what  collectively  the  Council  reject;  individual  Council- 
men  have  voted  contrary  to  their  opinions  to  please  their  constitu- 
ents.' » 

"  'The  power  of  discharge  and  appointment  rests  only  in  the 
General  Manager;  dismissal  follows  one  charge  for  drunkenness, 
when  proven;  a  weak  manager  would  soon  bring  the  service  to 
ruin.' '' 

"  'The  public,  especially  the  workingmen,  exert  a  pressure  for 
the  reduction  of  fares ;  a  demand  for  it  is  made  for  political,  effect.'  " 


REMODELING    TESTIMONY.  41 

Investigator  Commons  gives  it  as  a  fact  (page  104)  that  in  all 
the  British  municipal  undertakings,  except  in  Liverpool,  the  atti- 
tude of  the  managers  was  favorable  to  union  men.  Yet  he  knew 
that  Superintendent  Alexander  Wilson,  gas,  Glasgow,  had  said,  in 
response  to  a  question:  "We  do  not  recognize  any  union;  a  man 
is  a  man  to  us/'  and  that  there  had  been  a  strike  at  the  Glasgow 
gas-works — causes  sufficient  for  him  to  put  the  undertaking  in  the 
"hostile"  class  had  it  belonged  to  a  company. 

Richard  Davies,  then  the  Scottish  District  Organizer,  Muni- 
cipal Employees,  told  us :  "The  influence  of  Councilmen  in  getting 
jobs  is  a  known  fact." 

In  a  debate  at  the  Glasgow  Council  meeting,  Thursday,  April 
5,  1906,  on  a  proposition  to  enact  that  all  city  employees  be  en- 
gaged through  the  Municipal  Labor  Bureau,  the  following  were 
among  the  utterances  of  Labor  Councilmen : 

"Councillor  Battersby :  'It  is  the  prevailing  impression  that  in 
Glasgow  there  is  no  chance  to  get  employment -without  the  recom- 
mendation of  a  town  Councillor.  This  is  the  painful  experience  of 
a  Councillor.  The  Labor  Bureau  was  established  for  the  express 
purpose  of  extending  aid  to  those  seeking  employment,  but  not  one 
in  100  are  placed  through  the  Bureau.  This  notorious  fact  of  ig- 
noring the  Labor  Bureau  offends  the  sense  of  justice  in  the  out- 
side mind.' 

"Bailie  Stewart :  'The  idea  prevails  that  a  man  cannot  get  a 
job  without  influence.  We  ought  to  know  the  number  of  men  who 
are  registered  at  the  Labor  Bureau  who  are  not  employed.  We 
could  have  in  a  few  months  a  record  of  the  men  registering.' 

"Bailie  Stevenson :  'In  the  abstract  the  motion  is  good  and 
right,  but  the  employment  of  those  registered  should  be  preferen- 
tial and  not  compulsory/" 

"The  ex-Treasurer:  'The  friends  of  foremen  and  officials  get 
a  preference.' 

"Bailie  Forsyth:  'This  motion  would  cover  the  whole  of  the 
corporation  employment.  Promotion  comes  in  cases  from  outside 
influence,  while  the  lads  in  the  offices  are  not  promoted."  [Em- 
ployment from  a  certain  commercial  school.] 

"[Glasgow  Corporation  has  no  civil  service.]" 

In  an  interview  at  which  Investigator  Commons  was  present, 
R.  Toller,  35  Ruskin  Buildings,  Corporation  Street,  Birmingham, 
Secretary  Amalgamated  Gas  Workers,  Brickmakers  and  General 
Laborers'  Society,  said: 

"  'If  the  men  at  the  Corporation  Gas  Works  in  Birmingham 
did  not  organize  the  Corporation  would  not  increase  wages  or  give 
good  hours.  We  deal  with  the  Corporation  as  we  would  with  a  pri- 
vate employer.  Some  of  the  Councillors,  who  are  business  men, 
might  pay  the  lowest  wages  if  we  did  not  organize  and  defend  our- 
selves.' 

"  'There  is  difficulty  in  organizing  men  in  fairly  good  positions 
and  holding  them.  They  will  organize  to  get  an  increase,  but  the 
difficulty  is  after  we  get  the  increase  to  keep  the  men  in  the  line.' '' 

"Editor  Kirk,  of  'Dart,'  Birmingham :  'Speaking  of  Birming- 
ham, I  say  that  members  of  the  Council  do  not  give  the  attention 
to  the  gas  undertaking  that  would  be  given  by  the  directors  of  a 
company.  They  trust  to  the  officials.  Municipal  trading  creates 
an  immense  army  of  officials.  The  gas  employees  here  have  more 


42  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

than  onee  forced  the  Council  to  raise  their  pay.  When  municipali- 
zation  of  electricity  was  talked  of  here  shrewd  people  started  an  elec- 
tric enterprise  and  sold  high  to  the  city/ '' 

"Pete  Curran  [now  M.  P.,  National  Organizer]  :  'The  organi- 
zation is  rather  indifferent  in  Glasgow  and  Leicester  [municipal 
gas  workers].  The  men  after  getting  a  remedy  for  their  grievances 
clear  out  of  the  union/  " 

"James  Holmes,  Trustee,  at  the  general  offices  of  the  Amalga- 
mated Hosiery  Union,  Leicester,  said:  'As  an  ex-member  of  the 
Leicester  town  Council  1  know  that  workmen  get  work  on  the  Cor- 
poration through  the  influence  of  labor  and  other  Councillors.  Ap- 
plicants must  have  the  backing  of  Councillors  and  others.  In  fact, 
many  workmen  vote  for  labor  men  in  hope  of  getting  work,  and 
the  candidate  has  encouraged  this  hope  of  getting  work  when  seek- 
ing the  workman's  vote.  And  if  the  hoped  for  work  is  not  found, 
men  have  said,  "When  are  you  going  to  get  us  a  job?"  "What  did 
we  elect  you  for,  if  not  to  get  work?"  and,  "If  you  do  not  get  us 
jobs  we  shall  not  vote  for  you  again/'  This  is  the  danger  existent 
to-day,  and  is  a  serious  portent  of  the  future.  Behind  the  scenes 
and  under  the  surface  a  great  deal  of  this  goes  on.  Few  are  free 
to  state  these  facts,  for  most  are  either  seeking  a  place  on  Council  or 
Parliament,  and  are  dependent  of  the  votes  of  workmen  as  they  are 
the  numbers,  and  if  the  facts  were  mentioned  they  would  lose  votes 
and  place.  The  broad  spirt  of  freedom  no  more  exists  among  the 
masses  than  among  the  classes.  I  was  a  member  of  the  Gas,  High- 
way, Sanitary  Watch,  and  Estate  Committees,  and  had  some  experi- 
ence of  these  things.  Workmen  to-day  could  be  employed  at  20 
per  cent  less  than  is  now  paid  in  the  open  market,  but  the  restric- 
tive influence  of  the  unions  in  a  protective  manner  acting  on  the 
Council  raise  the  wages  at  least  this  amount. 

"  'In  Britain  the  unions  have  been  legalized  as  trade  unions,  as 
voluntary  associations  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  have  discarded 
the  voluntary  principle,  and  have  become  political  associations,  and 
trading  associations,  with  about  £1,000,000  invested  at  profit  and 
interest.  The  effect  of  the  election  is  to  check  the  organizing  of 
members,  as  men  are  being  taught  to  look  to  Parliament  instead  of 
unions  as  the  unions  have  failed  to  gain  the  social  efforts  aimed  at. 
Trade  unions  are  declining  as  an  economic  force,  and  are  emerging 
into  a  revolutionary  political  force,  becoming  separated  from  the 
scientific  basis  of  truth,  individual  right  and  social  justice/  '' 

"Councillor  A.  J.  Bailey,  55  Burngreave  Road,  Sheffield,  Secre- 
tary, National  Amalgamated  Union  of  Labor,  interviewed  Wednes- 
day, June  13,  at  his  office  in  his  residence: 

"  'I  am  bound  to  recognize  the  weaknesses  of  municipalizing. 
In  some  respects  the  consequences  of  political  action  are  deplorable. 
You  can  only  build  up  your  union  for  the  time  that  labor  does  not 
hold  political  sway.  And  when  an  undertaking  is  municipalized 
and  the  wages  and  conditions  of  labor  improved  by  labor  politicians, 
the  employees  tend  uniformly  to  drop  out  of  the  union.  That  was 
the  case  in  Leicester.  Our  members  do  the  same  with  me.  I  got 
the  corporation  gas  employees  an  advance  of  3d.  a  day  through  arbi- 
tration at  Rotherham  (near  Sheffield),  and  they  immediately 
dropped  out.  They  are  not  in  a  position  to  help  themselves  or  any- 
one else  at  this  moment.  Had  they  worked  by  union  methods  they 


REMODELING    TESTIMONY.  43 

would  be  in  the  union  to-day  and  enjoying  further  advantages. 

"  'Tramway  men  in  Sheffield  are  wearing  a  union  button,  while 
at  work,  without  asking  permission,  and  threaten  to  strike  for  the 
right.  The  movement  is  due  to  Socialist  agitation.  It  is  a  sub- 
version of  discipline.  A  political  organization  and  not  a  trade 
union  is  attempting  to  run  the  matter.  Nothing  is  to  be  gained 
by  it.  Discipline  must  be  maintained  in  the  municipal  under- 
taking as  in  the  limited  company. 

"  Tor  some  years  the  cry  has  been  "The  ballot  box,"  "Trade 
unionism  is  played  out,"  "Eight  hours  a  day  by  legal  enactment," 
"Wages  by  law" ! 

"  'The  Independent  Labor  Party  has  thirty  men  in  the  House  of 
Commons.  They  make  a  great  noise  about  doing  something  for 
labor  by  legal  enactment,  and  this  has  a  tendency  to  lead  workmen 
to  believe  that  trade  union  methods  are  antiquated.  The  unskilled 
are  holding  back  from  organizing  except  the  union  is  run  as  a  po- 
litical organization.  Trade  union  organizing  is  not  advancing  at 
the  rate  it  ought  in  England. 

"  'A  corporation  plays  quite  as  prominent  a  part  in  keeping 
wages  down  as  keeping  wages  up.  A  Councillor  who  has  some 
supporters  not  up  to  the  standard  of  average  workmen  gives  them 
notes  to  managers  of  department.  The  Councillor  who  has  recom- 
mended a  supporter  who  as  a  business  man  he  would  not  employ, 
will  allow  a  rate  of  wages  to  be  fixed  for  him  at  the  value  not  of  a 
good  man,  but  of  that  of  the  inferior  man  recommended. 

"  'In  a  corporation  [municipality]  a  certain  percentage  of  po- 
litical hangers  on  must  get  jobs.  In  the  Council  I  sometimes  say, 
"If  this  were  a  limited  company,  this  could  not  happen."  It  would 
be  easier  to  pad  payrolls  in  a  municipality  by  inferior  men  than 
in  a  private  company. 

"  'If  in  America  you  could  limit  monopolies  as  we  have  done 
the  gas  companies  in  this  country  you  would  do  the  work  properly. 
Instance :  the  Sheffield  Gas  .  Lr ght  and  Coke  Company. 

"  'I  have  observed  that  under  corporations  the  tendency  is  for 
salary  pay  to  go  up  while  wages  pay  goes  down,  except  in  cases 
where  the  workmen  are  thoroughly  organized  in  a  strong  trade 
union. 

"  'But,  notwithstanding  fhese  trivial  drawbacks,  I  am  a  strong 
believer  in  municipalization  and  a  supporter  of  municipal  under- 
takings.' x 

The  basis  of  the  foregoing  matter  from  Councillor  Bailey  was 
my  notes,  taken  on  the  3 pot,  of  certain  statements  he  made  in  this 
interview  with  him  at  Sheffield.  These  I  had  typewritten  in  Lon- 
don more  than  a  month  afterward,  and  sent  to  him.  He  returned 
them,  with  corrections  and  additions;  what  is  here  printed,  unal- 
tered, is  from  his  corrected  copy.  The  most  notable  addition  was 
the  last  paragraph.  Investigator  Commons,  to  whom  I  had  given 
a  copy,  hacf  meantime  drawn  his  attention  to  how  he  had  "put  his 
foot  in  it."  He  threw  a  somersault  to  get  himself  in  the  required 
attitude  before  the  municipalization  advocates.  His  long  list  of 
"deplorable  consequences"  had  become  "trivial  drawbacks." 

A  similar  acrobatic  feat  was  apparently  performed  by  the  Glas- 
gow Labor  Councillors,  whose  words  I  quote  above.  This  was  done 
when  Investigator  Commons  went  back  to  Glasgow  alone  and  man- 


44  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

aged  to  get  the  explanations  of  their  remarks  he  prints,  Vol.  II, 
Part  II,  page  21. 

But  Trustee  Holmes  could  not  be  shaken.  He  had  said  what 
he  meant.  Neither  could  Organizer  Davies. 

In  London  I  had  many  interviews  with  Labor  County  Council- 
lors and  Members  of  Parliament,  in  which  they  dwelt  upon  the 
seamy  side  of  municipalization  and  the  possible  injury  to  result 
from  the  British  trade  union  trend  at  that  time  toward  Socialism. 
I  ceased  to  enter  such  matter  in  my  notebooks ;  it  was  common  talk. 
Investigator  Commons  regarded  any  record  of  observers'  views  that 
foreshadowed  consequences,  or  any  assemblage  of  facts  that  pointed 
to  a  reversal  of  the  political  policies  of  British  unions,  as  lying  out- 
side our  errand.  Labor  representatives  themselves  were  cautious  in 
talking  of  the  pitfalls  encountered  in  mingling  unionism  and  poli- 
tics. They  would  at  times  ask  not  to  be  quoted.  I  had  seen  noth- 
ing of  this  circumspection  when  in  Great  Britain  ten  years  before. 
Its  trade  union  circles  were  then,  as  are  America's  now,  charac- 
terized by  a  courageous  frankness  in  the  utterance  of  sentiments. 
"Hunting  cover"  was  an  uncultivated  art.  But  here  were  members 
of  the  very  same  group  of  men,  perplexed  as  political  trade  union- 
ist officeholders,  "afraid  of  their  horses."  I  quote  a  passage  I 
wrote  in  Madison,  October,  1906,  on  this  situation  for  the  joint 
report ;  Investigator  Commons,  in  declining  to  accept  it,  rather  re- 
garded this  record  of  a  serio-comic  state  of  facts  as  out  of  place  in 
sober,  heavy  report  carpentering : 

"Repeatedly  in  the  course  of  this  investigtion  in  Great  Britain 
and  the  United  States,  the  present  writer  (J.  W.  Sullivan)  has 
listened  to  statements  either  by  Councilmen  or  union  officials  re- 
garding which  the  makers  afterward  desired  to  hedge  or  even  enter 
contradictions.  If  the  investigator  had  made  memoranda  simply  of 
the  vital  statements  of  the  speaker's  talk,  his  notes  were  later  on 
criticised  as  'scrappy'  or  not  taking  into  account  why  the  speaker 
was  'putting  his  case  strongly/  [Glasgow.]  If  he  set  out  to  write 
the  substance  of  an  interview  on  the  spot,  the  man  interviewed 
would  call  his  attention  to  the  danger  of  giving  offense  to  one  or 
another  officeholder,  to  the  possible  ultimate  detriment  of  a  union 
official.  'I  don't  want  this  to  come  back  on  me,'  would  be  said. 
Desiring  to  get  at  facts  irrespective  of  bias,  the  investigator  would 
at  times  find  that  his  informant  was  merely  echoing  the  claims  of 
a  [political]  party.  Thereat  would  rise  the  query  whether  the  labor 
representative  was  working  politics  for  labor,  or  working  labor  for 
a  party,  or  merely  was  looking  out  for  the  furtherance  of  his  own 
fortunes." 

The  pith  and  point  of  the  matter  in  the  last  two  chapters  will 
doubtless  affect  the  mind  of  the  general  reader,  and  especially  of 
the  trade  unionist,  as  deeply  as  anything  occupying  similar  space  in 
our  joint  report.  Quotations  from  participants  in  a  movement  em- 
bodying the  gist  of  their  experiences,  and  approved  by  them  after 
reflection,  as  are  the  foregoing,  strike  home,  as  well  directed  shots 
reach  the  bull's  eye  of  a  target. 

COMPARATIVE    CIVIC    PURITY. 

No  evidence  whatever  was  produced  by  our  Commission's  pro- 
municipalist  investigators  that  Councils  in  British  anti-municipalist 
cities  are  of  a  lower  grade  than  in  cities  much  municipalized.  And 


COMPARATIVE    CIVIC    PURITY.  45 

as  to  the  assumed  surpassing  purity  and  efficiency  of  British  gov- 
ernment administration  compared  with  the  results  of  our  democ- 
racy, some  reflection  is  due. 

While  Investigator  Commons  was  finding  the  Sheffield  and 
Newcastle-on-Tyne  Town  Councils  guilty  of  inferiority  to  other 
Town  Councils,  without  giving  a  single  fact  on  which  to  base  his 
judgment,  he  had  had  through  me  sufficient  criticisms  of  the  Coun- 
cil in  Glasgow  from  its  own  citizens  to  raise  a  question  as  to  the 
solid  block  of  virtues  with  which  it  was  accredited  by  certain  mem- 
bers of  our  Commission. 

It  was,  in  fact,  instructive  to  me,  on  my  pioneer  visit  alone  to 
Glasgow,  to  see  how  little  free  from  political  bickerings  that  para- 
gon city  of  the  municipalists  is,  as  well  as  how  often  imputations  of 
seeking  selfish  ends  were  cast  upon  many  of  the  city  fathers.  I  had 
before  me,  as  in  a  set  of  moving  pictures,  the  onslaughts  and  melees 
of  the  hotly  contending  municipal  factions  of  a  big  American  city. 
The  combatants  were  calling  one  another  the  same  names,  accusing 
one  another  of  the  same  human  failings,  as  we  are  accustomed  to 
hearing  at  home  in  cities  not  our  best. 

The  charges  of  favoritism  in  appointments  made  at  the  Council 
session  I  attended  had  the  familiar  sound  of  the  same  charge  so 
often  heard  in  American  Council  chambers.  But  I  was  hardly  pre- 
pared for  the  positive  denials  made  on  other  questions  to  direct  as- 
sertions regarding  what  were  ascertainable  facts,  one  way  or  the 
other.  The  leader  of  the  opposition  declared  that  tramway  street 
rectifications,  naming  one  of  the  streets,  had  not  been  charged  to 
the  tramways  department;  the  convenor  (chairman)  of  the  Tram- 
ways Committee  flatly  contradicted  the  statement.  Lively  inter- 
ruptions of  a  speaker  continually  imparted  a  hilariousness  or  a  wave 
of  indignation  in  the  meeting-  One  Councillor,  badgered  by  oppo- 
nents, refused  to  proceed  in  speaking,  and  took  his  seat.  An  opDO- 
nent  taunted  him  with  simulating  martyrdom.  From  beginning 
to  end  the  session  was  spicy. 

The  city  officials  I  met  talked  little  before  me  about  one  an- 
other, but  among  other  men  I  met  then  and  since  I  observed  a  lib- 
erality in  affirming  shortcomings  in  public  places  satisfactory  to 
any  Englishman  critical  of  the  Scotch. 

There's  ample  work  yet  for  the  public  purifier  in  Glasgow. 

That  city  is  laughing  yet  at  a  Town  Councillor  who  is  a  hatter 
who  had  to  apologize  in  the  press  for  putting  the  name  and  label  of 
a  high-class  firm  in  a  hat  of  his  own  inferior  make.  The  commu- 
nity suffered  a  blow  in  its  pride  when,  in  recent  years,  its  treasurer 
pleaded  guilty  to  embezzlement  and  took  five  years'  penalty  without 
trial.  To  believe  everyday  street  rumor  and  the  published  asser- 
tions of  some  of  the  reformers,  the  licensing  of  public  houses  by  the 
Bailies  (Aldermen)  is  attended  by  crude  forms  of  bribery  in  ways 
great  and  small.  A  Bailie  connected  with  a  housepainting  firm  will 
get  the  job  of  painting  the  hotel  from  which  his  influence  might 
take  away  the  license — type  of  a  series  of  stories  imaginable  from 
the  situation.  And  that  something  is  fundamentally  wrong  in  the 
municipality's  management  of  the  liquor  traffic  is  scandalously  evi- 
dent in  the  frightful  horrors  of  Glasgow's  streets  after  nightfall, 
unparalleled  in  their  degradation  in  any  other  city  I  saw  in  Great 


4G  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

Britain  and  undreamed  of  in  the  poorest  sections  of  New  York. 

The  tricks  commonly  attributed  to  Tammany  by  our  reform- 
ers, but  which  are  known  generally  to  municipal  machines,  are 
played  in  Glasgow.  "Quite  recently/'  says  a  pamphlet  arraigning 
the  city  government,  "a  corporation  (municipal)  advertisement 
was  withheld  from  a  local  paper  because  the  paper  had  ventured  to 
criticise  a  certain  department."  Again:  "Municipal  employees, 
from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  are  consciously  and  unconsciously 
becoming  a  municipal  caste."  A  business  man,  active  in  organiza- 
tions fighting  municipalism,  cannot  obtain  a  city  contract,  if  what 
I  was  more  than  once  assured  is  correct.  His  name  is  struck  off 
the  contractors'  list. 

In  the  Council's  business,  according  to  the  Glasgow  Xews,  "a 
certain  laxity  of  method  has  been  prevalent  which  might  very  easily 
lead  to  serious  abuses."  This  journal  gives  an  example  in  which, 
after  the  Council  had  passed  a  bill,  one  of  its  clauses,  relating  to 
compensation,  had  been  altered.  In  another  case  a  committee 
added  a  new  clause.  It  is  not  concealed  in  Glasgow  that  the  elec- 
tricity department  exists  under  the  sufferance  of  the  gas  depart- 
ment, with  the  consequent  withering  of  the  local  electrical  industry. 

Factious  organizations  in  the  dominant  element  strive  to  in- 
fluence the  local  elections.  There  is  an  Irish  Municipal  Commit- 
tee, a  Corporation  Workers'  Union,  a  Co-operative  Municipal  Elec- 
tion Committee,  an  Independent  Labor  Party  Committee,  and  a 
Glasgow  Central  Liberal  Association,  "to  secure  the  return  of  Lib- 
eral representatives  to  all  local  boards."  Good  game,  hunters  a- 
plenty. 

"Glasgow's  municipal  enterprises  have  nearly  abolished  taxa- 
tion," was  a  bit  of  news  going  the  rounds  of  the  municipal  owner- 
ship press  of  America  two  years  ago.  By  the  official  reports,  the 
Glasgow  municipal  debt  is  now  £14,986,400,  against  £9,049,065  in 
1898;  the  total  of  rates  and  taxes,  8s.  3d.  on  the  pound,  against 
4s.  lid.  in  1890;  the  total  of  assessments,  for  municipal  purposes 
only,  £911,484,  against  £628,789  in  1898.  The  problem  of  munic- 
ipal tenements  is  at  present  complicated,  with  15,069  houses  unoccu- 
pied, out  of  a  total  of  163,427. 

Five  years  ago  the  Katepa}rers'  Federation  began  exposing  the 
unsatisfactory  auditing  of  Glasgow's  accounts.  More  recently  it 
entered  suit  to  prevent  the  city  from  expending  money  in  the  pro- 
motion of  a  land  values  taxation  bill  in  Parliament.  On  both  these 
issues  the  municipality  has  (June,  1908)  surrendered,  after  a  costly 
litigation.  The  auditing  methods  recommended  by  the  Katepayer^' 
Association  have  been  adopted;  the  inroads  on  the  Common  Good 
must  be  stopped;  the  expenditure  in  promoting  the  taxation  of  land 
values  bill  has  ceased,  as  illegal.  Of  the  £2,457  spent  £1,685  was 
got  back  from  other  municipalities. 

As  is  generally  the  case  in  Great  Britain,  the  bookkeeping  of 
the  general  city  accounts  in  connection  with  the  municipal  under- 
takings accounts  have  resulted  in  Glasgow  in  a  wide  disbelief  in  the 
soundness  of  the  city's  methods.  While  the  current  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures of  an  undertaking  in  any  single  year  may  be  correctly 
set  forth,  questions  of  interest,  renewals,  depreciation,  and  sums 
properly  chargeable  to  original  cost,  to  street  improvements,  and  to 
general  municipal  administration  leave  it  undetermined  as  to  what 


"J.    J.    GRIFFIN    &    SONS."  47 

really  is  the  financial  condition  of  the  undertaking.  On  July  10, 
1908,  for  example,  the  leading  editorial  in  the  Glasgow  "Herald" 
began:  "Yesterday  the  corporation  [Town  Council]  treated  itself 
to  what  might  be  described  as  at  least  a  half  dress  debate  uDon  the 
disposal  of  the  tramway  surplus — a  discussion  which  must  provide 
considerable  amusement  for  those  critics  of  municipal  accounting 
who  hold,  as  we  do,  that  there  is  not  yet  any  palpable  surplus  to  di- 
vide." 

The  Citizens'  Union  deplores  the  lack  of  co-ordination  of  Glas- 
gow's municipal  departments ;  "Their  heads  are  colonels,  and  there 
is  no  general."  A  leading  lawyer  states  publicly  that  the  local  law 
is  a  labyrinth.  The  enormously  increased  duties  of  Councillors 
with  the  rapid  municipalization  of  various  enterprises  serves  to  keep 
busy  citizens  out  of  the  Council.  The  petty  graft  of  Councillors  of 
small  calibre — such  as  running  up  questionable  hotel  bills  while 
travelling,  going  third  class  and  charging  up  first  class  fares — 
keeps  gossip  of  possibly  greater  underhand  graft  alive. 

All  is  not  smooth  and  "superior"  in  Glasgow's  municipal  af- 
fairs. A  local  scribe*  noting  its  difficulties,  speaks  of  the  city's 
"litigation,  annexation,  confiscation,  federation,  consolidation,  mu- 
nicipalization, street  'registration,  land  values  taxation."  Each  of 
these  polys}dlables  designates  a  public  bone  of  contention  or  a  mu- 
nicipal disaster,  such  as  the  telephone  fiasco. 

II. 

One  of  the  men  most  prominently  in  view  in  London  when  our 
Commission  was  in  that  city  was  Mr.  T.  McKinnon  Wood.  When 
he  appeared  at  one  of  our  sessions  he  was  introduced  by  Robert  Don- 
ald, Editor  of  the  Daily  Chronicle,  as  the  leader  of  the  Progressives 
in  the  London  County  Council.  There  was  no  doubt  that  he  occu- 
pied that  position.  He  led  the  Progressive  side  in  the  debate  in 
the  Council ;  he  was  at  one  time  chairman  of  the  body ;  he  appeared 
before  committees  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  behalf  of  the  Coun- 
cil; his  name  as  leader  was  in  the  newspapers  every  day. 

But  something  happened  to  him  a  year  ago.  It  forms  a  story 
which  in  New  York  would  be  rehearsed  by  the  newspapers  endlessly 
to  a  public  man's  disadvantage.  In  England,  however,  matters  af- 
fecting private  character  may  be  printed  immediately  in  connec- 
tion with  public  proceedings,  but  are  not  to  be  dilated  upon  after- 
ward. So  nothing  comes  out  in  the  newspapers  at  the  present  time 
in  relation  to  this  episode  in  which  Mr.  Wood  figured,  though  his 
friends  and  his  opponents  whisper  of  the  damage  his  reputation  has 
suffered  through  its  developments. 

Some  one,  in  February,  1907,  called  the  attention  of  the  West- 
minster City  Council  (London  has  two  "cities"  and  twenty-eight 
boroughs,  each  with  a  Council),  to  the  fact  that  a  "cellar  flap" 
(street  cellar  door)  had  been  set  in  the  public  way  in  front  of  the 
premises  of  J.  J.  Griffin  &  Sons,  scientific  instrument  makers,  Kean 
street,  Kingsway.  As  permission  for  this  cellar-flap  had  been  re- 
fused by  the  Council,  it  set  up  an  inquiry.  The  London  County 
Council  replied,  in  response  to  a  communication,  that  plans  of  pave- 
ment lights  were  approved  by  it  in  December,  190-4,  and  as  the  only 
departure  from  the  plans  in  this  case  was  that  one  of  the  lights  had 
been  hinged  so  as  to  act  as  a  cellar-flap,  the  Council  would  take  no 


48  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

proceedings.  The  Westminster  City  Council  thereupon  protested 
against  the  exceptional  treatment  accorded  to  Messrs.  J.  J.  Griffin 
&  Sons.  In  printing  a  report  of  these  proceedings  the  Daily  Mail 
asked,  "Who  are  Messrs.  J.  J.  Griffin  &  Sons?"  The  Financial 
News,  in  reply,  printed  a  three-column  article  which  showed  that 
J.  J.  Griffin  &  Sons,  contractors  for  the  London  County  Council, 
were,  to  the  extent  of  nearly  50  per  cent,  Mr.  T.  McKinnon  Wood. 
The  leader  of  the  Progressives  had  bought  shares  in  the  company 
in  1899,  and  became  a  director  in  1900.  In  1905  he  was  in  all 
possessed  of  4,247  shares  out  of  9,990  and  the  ten  founders'  shares. 
Some  one  with  a  memory  now  recalled  that  Messrs.  J.  J.  Griffin 
had  been  formerly  on  premises  which  had  been  demolished  in  mak- 
ing the  great  Holborn-to-Strand  improvement,  the  new  broad,  cen- 
tral street  of  which  became  Kingsway.  The  relevant  documents 
looked  up,  it  came  out  that  Messrs.  J.  J.  Griffin  &  Son,  in  lieu  of 
their  leasehold  in  the  premises  demolished,  had  been  given  by  the 
London  County  Council  a  lease  for  fifty  years  of  a  site  equal  in 
area  to  that  abandoned,  at  the  same  rental,  together  with  £16,000 
cash  compensation! 

A  sub-committee  of  the  London  County  Council  investigated 
the  connection  of  Mr.  Wood  with  the  Griffin  firm.  It  reported, 
Feb.  25,  that  from  1889  to  1897  various  schemes  before  the  Council 
for  the  Holborn-to-Strand  improvement  were  rejected,  and  that  the 
one  proposed  in  1896,  by  which  the  Griffin  leasehold  premises  were 
to  be  taken,  was  abandoned,  and  that  Mr.  Wood  voted  against  all 
these  schemes.  Further,  in  1897  the  Improvements  Committee 
had  devoted  its  attention  to  a  scheme  that  would  have  avoided  the 
street  on  which  the  Griffin  premises  were  situated.  To  the  point 
that  had  been  raised  that  the  Griffin  firm  had  moved  from  a  side 
street  into  the  premises  demolished  when  it  was  known  they  might 
be  taken  for  the  improvement,  the  sub-committee  said  there  was 
nothing  that  would  justify  them  in  assuming  that  any  other  than 
business  considerations  actuated  the  firm  to  so  remove.  In  1897 
its  sales  were  four  times  as  much  as  in  1890,  and  in  1907  three 
times  those  of  1897.  The  staff  increased  from  35  in  1897  to  138 
in  1906.  "There  was  no  doubt,"  the  committee  said,  "that  in  the 
year  1898  Mr.  Wood  (who  was  then  chairman  of  the  Council)  was 
aware  that  the  [Griffin]  site  would  be  taken."  "The  question  for 
us  is  whether  he  took  steps  to  inform  the  Council  of  his  interest  in 
the  property,"  though  at  that  time  there  was  no  legal  obligation,  as 
there  now  is,  upon  a  member  to  disclose  his  interest  in  a  question 
before  the  Council.  The  committee  found  three  members  to  whom 
Mr.  Wood  had  mentioned  his  interest  in  the  firm,  but  the  Clerk  of 
the  Council  from  1896  to  1900  never  had  the  matter  brought  to  his 
knowledge.  As  to  the  Griffin  Council  contracts,  the  committee  re- 
ported that  in  number  they  were  considerably  more  than  other  firms 
obtained — but  as  a  rule  they  supplied  the  cheapest  article  and  were 
in  a  better  position  to  supply  certain  apparatus  than  some  of  their 
competitors.  And  thus  the  committee  somewhat  perfunctorily  re- 
cited a  set  of  facts  that  on  their  face  lessened  the  showing  against 
Mr.  Wood,  who  had  already  made  his  explanations  in  the  daily  press. 
A  correspondent  of  the  Morning  Advertiser,  Feb.  12,  had,  how- 
ever, with  particulars  as  to  dates,  quoted  from  the  records  to  show 
that  the  Holborn-to-Strand  scheme  adopted  in  1898  had  differed 


THE    POLITICIAN.  41> 

from  that  recommended  in  1892,  and  again  in  1895,  in  only  one 
important  point,  a  bifurcation  at  the  southern  end  of  the  great  new 
street,  in  no  wise  affecting  the  Griffin  site.  The  disturbance  of  this 
site  was  contemplated  by  the  Improvements  Committee  from  year 
to  year.  Mr.  T.  McKinnon  Wood,  as  chairman  of  the  Council,  at- 
tended as  an  ex-officio  member  23  of  the  36  sessions  in  1898  of  the 
Improvements  Committee,  which,  on  July  5,  when  Mr.  Wood  wa<? 
in  the  chair,  unanimously  decided  that  the  best  scheme  was  that 
recommended  by  the  same  committee  in  1892  and  1896.  The 
Morning  Advertiser's  correspondent  concludes,  after  a  column  of 
citations  from  Council  and  Committee  proceedings:  "It  was  im-* 
possible,  therefore,  that  any  county  Councillor  could  have  gone  into 
Sardinia  street  [to  the  Griffin  site]  without  being  aware  that  he  was 
on  the  line  of  improvement,  which  must  be  scheduled  under  the  re- 
coupment scheme." 

I  heard  professed  two  sets  of  opinions  on  this  case  in  London. 
Some  cautious  and  closely  interested  observers  hold  that  the  Com- 
mittee's report  absolved  Mr.  Wood.  Otherwise,  plain  spoken  citi- 
zens, just  as  deeply  interested,  maintained  that  he  is  discredited,, 
even  with  his  own  associates  in  private,  and  that  his  useful  career 
is  ended,  as  time  will  show.  The  cellar-flap  privilege,  the  great  in- 
crease in  the  business  of  Griffin  &  Sons,  the  compensation,  the  pub- 
lic ignorance  that  Mr.  W^ood  was  so  much  also  Griffin  &  Sons,  here 
is  circumstantial  evidence  most  disturbing. 

In  that  land  of  keeping  mum  on  anti-patriotic  topics,  partly 
through  national  habit  and  partly  through  terrors  of  the  law,  the 
matter  is  barred  from  public  discussion.  But  its  echoes  would  still 
from  time  to  time  call  forth  black  headlines  in  the  evening  papers 
had  the  event  occurred  in  New  York.  America  would  have  one 
more  occasion  to  hang  her  head -for  "the  shame  of  her  cities."  And 
had  Investigator  Commons  found  any  such  case  among  the  Mod- 
erate or  Labor-Liberal  Councillors  of  Sheffield  or  Newcastle-upon- 
Tyne,  he  would  have  made  the  most  of  this  bit  of  testimony  to  gen- 
eralize on  the  "inferiority"  of  the  Councils  of  these  two  cities.  But 
he  never  produced  one  word  of  any  testimony  of  the  kind.  He 
could  not. 

III. 

.  Illustrative  of  accepting  appearances  as  the  solid  background  of 
fact  is  the  impression  somewhat  prevalent  among  tourist  Ameri- 
cans that  government  in  Great  Britain,  municipal  or  general,  shows 
little  trace  of  the  flaws  they  hear  so  loudly  decried  at  home.  But 
the  American  observer  wiu>  tarries  awhile  and  takes  note  is  awak- 
ened first  to  the  fact  that  current  political  happenings  at  times  tell 
a  familiar  tale,  and  secondly,  to  the  truth  that  where  we  blab  and 
re-thrash  public  scandals  the  British  method  prescribes  a  short 
story  and  a  long  silence. 

Occasionally  some  of  the  remarks  of  newspaper  editors  and 
correspondents  go  far  to  lift  the  curtain  to  the  visiting  American. 
A  Yarmouth  man  writes  to  a  London  daily  newspaper:  "From 
knowledge  gained  from  forty  years'  insight  into  the  municipal  and 
parliamentary  life  of  this  town,  I  unhesitatingly  state  that  our  local 
government  is  rotten  to  the  core.  Open  bribery  has  been  practiced 
on  both  sides,  and  open  treating  at  municipal*  and  parochial  con- 
tests. The  landlord  holds  the  whip  over  the  tenant ;  the  employer 


50  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

< 
coerces  the  employee;  the  customer  boycotts  the  tradesman." 

After  Kidderminster  leturned  to  Parliament  a  Liberal,  many 
of  the  wealthy  men  of  the  district,  mostly  manufacturers,  refused 
to  renew  their  subscriptions  to  the  benevolent  funds  of  the  Carpet 
Weavers'  Association,  with  its  staunch  Liberal  vote.  A  candidate 
may  subscribe  to  a  local  cricket  club,  local  charities,  or  local  amuse- 
ments, to  gain  popularity,  or  refuse  to  subscribe  when  not  paid  back 
in  popularity  on  election  day.  Said  a  Member  of  Parliament  to  me 
who  had  lived  in  New  York:  "American  politicians  carry  on  their 
doings  before  the  curtain;  ours  know  what  part  of  the  play  should 
go  on  when  the  curtain  is  down." 

The  London  borough  scandals  have  had  their  airing  in  the 
American  press: — West  Ham,  with  its  workhouse  bedroom  suite 
that  cost  $250:  Poplar,  with  its  poor  rate  in  1907  just  double  that 
of  1891 ;  others,  with  their  unusual  expense  accounts  for  Mayor  and 
Councillors,  their  petty  grafts  of  handsome  pocketbooks  for  Council 
members  and  friends.  The  small  peculations  in  boroughs,  how- 
ever, pale  before  their  egregious  business  blunders.  Marylebono 
decided  to  take  in  hand  its  own  electric  lighting;  the  law  required 
that  it  must  buy  out  the  local  company,  which  offered  to  sell  for 
$4,500,000.  The  Council  rejected  the  price,  went  to  law  over  it, 
spent  $300,000  on  attorneys  and  costs,  and  in  the  end  paid 
$6,000,000. 

The  consequences  of  British  governmental  incapacity  are  de- 
scribed in  the  London  press  in  the  same  headlines  as  we  see  used 
for  the  same  chronic  difficulties  in  America:  "Discarded  War 
Stores  Eesold  to  the  Army  at  Great  Profit !"  "Strong  Condemna- 
tion of  London  Food  Factories!"  "Nation's  Printing  Bill;  Great 
Waste  on  Useless  Documents."  "The  Adulterations  of  Butter." 

The  predatory  political  machine  in  Great  Britain  has  been 
limited  by  opportunity.  The  hoodlum  masses  can't  be  bought 
cheap  because  as  empty  sacks  they  have  no  vote.  The  only  elective 
officeholders  are  members  of  the  Councils  and  of  Parliament,  un- 
paid. The  octopus  landlords  forestall  the  municipal  jobs  set  up  in 
American  suburban  districts  by  shoals  of  little  real  estate  sharks. 
The  public  waste  incident  to  the  colossal  development  of  great 
cities  in  a  rich  and  prodigal  new  world  is  absent.  No  increase  of 
population  of  forty-five  millions  in  forty  years  has  scrambled  multi- 
farious privileges  through  legislative  bodies  to  the  strong  and  un- 
scrupulous. 

The  conditions  for  exposure  and  public  scandal-mongery  are 
also  limited.  The  British  sensational  press  is  bridled  by  the  law. 
The  ten  thousand  busy  and  reckless  partisan  newspaper  pens  that 
dirty  public  reputations  in  America  with  impunity  would  rust  in 
idleness  in  Great  Britain,  where  with  exemplary  damages,  "The 
greater  the  truth  the  greater  is  the  libel." 

As  temptation  is  restricted,  purity  may  rise  proportionately. 
Eeputation  at  times  is  a  sequence  of  covering  up.  Seas  exist  be- 
neath the  surface  sea. 

THE   PASSING  OF  THE   MUNICIPAL  OWNERSHIP  FEVER. 

In  two  short  years  a  change  has  come  o'er  the  spirit  of  the 
dreams  told  by  pro-municipal  prophets.  To  look  no  further  than 
the  sphere  of  the  Civic  Federation's  investigation  and  questions  of 
•close  interest  to  its  Commission's  membership,  we  see  a  steady 


A   PASSING    MANIA.  51 

movement  away  from  municipal  ownership  and  toward  regulation. 

The  first  point  to  be  noted  is  that  in  its  report  to  the  Commis- 
sion the  Committee  of  Twenty-One  took  a  position  decidedly  against 
the  usual  propositions  for  municipal  ownership.  Not  one  of  the 
municipal  undertakings  investigated  in  the  United  States  had  ful- 
filled all  the  requirements  laid  down  by  the  committee  for  proof 
of  continuous  highly  successful  municipal  operation.  On  exam- 
ination of  these  undertakings,  which  were  examples  selected  by  the 
municipal  ownership  members  of  the  committee,  representative  men 
of  the  movement  found  out  that  what  they  wanted  was  usually 
some  other  ideal  of  municipal  ownership  than  that  investigated.  Of 
the  two  most  highly  creditable  examples,  one  was  of  the  exceptional 
class  of  water  supply,  which  may  be  a  failure  in  the  next  adminis- 
tration, and  the  other,  fin  electrical  undertaking,  of  an  order  too 
small  for  a  model  of  sure  value  to  large  cities.  The  minds  of  ob- 
servers who  had  carefully  followed  the  investigation  were  undoubt- 
edly influenced  by  the  report  to  pay  heed  in  future  to  methods  of 
control  rather  than  of  ownership. 

In  Philadelphia,  the  campaign  of  the  municipal  ownership 
advocates  against  the  renewal  for  twenty  years  of  the  lease  of  the 
United  Gas  Improvement  Company  failed  by  a  vote  of  54  to  22  in 
Council,  which,  the  "Public  Ledger"  said,  "very  fairly  represent- 
ed the  preponderance  of  public  opinion  on  the  subject."  Conse- 
quently until  1927  that  city  will  have  gas  of  the  first  quality  and  an 
admirable  service,  for  which  the  company,  by  its  figures,  receives  73 
cents  per  1,000  cubic  feet.  The  company  pays  into  the  city  10 
cents  out  of  the  $1  per  1,000  paid  by  the  consumer,  serves  the  nearly 
30,000  street  lamps  free,  and  at  the  end  of  the  lease  turns  the  entire 
plant  back  to  the  municipality. 

In  Chicago,  the  "immediate"  municipal  ownership  movement 
of  the  Dunne  administration  has,  under  the  votings  of  the  com- 
munity, come  to  nothing  but  a  regulation  that  puts  possible  munic- 
ipal ownership  off  to  a  remote  generation. 

In  Cleveland,  Prof.  Bemis  is  figuring  for  the  information  of 
the  country  how  many  million  dollars  have  been  saved  to  the  com- 
munity under  a  three-cent  fare  through  a  new  private  street-car 
company  instead  of  through  lines  owned  by  the  city. 

In  New  York,  the  present  summer  has  witnessed  the  curtain 
fall  on  a  sensational  municipal  campaign  farce  begun  three  years 
ago.  In  pleading  guilty  to  accepting  a  bribe  and  being  fined  $1,000, 
one  of  the  eleven  Municipal  Ownership  Aldermen  elected  in  that 
campaign  has  set  an  end  to  all  doubts  of  the  story  that  the  leader 
of  the  group,  caught  in  a  trap  made  in  a  newspaper  office,  had  bar- 
gained to  sell  the  eleven  votes  on  the  occasion  of  an  official  act  for 
$5,500.  The  shriek  of  this  stamp  of  municipal  reformer  has  been 
drowned  in  a  guffaw  from  New  York's  amused  criminals  of  all 
classes. 

But  the  serious  work  of  regulation,  led  by  the  Governor  of  the 
State,  bringing  into  existence  the  Public  Service  Commission,  is 
actually  fast  converting  <,o  its  support  the  mass  of  men  who  had 
spoken  of  themselves  as  nmnicipalization  advocates.  The  first 
annual  report  of  the  Commission  for  Greater  New  York,  just  issued, 
showing  its  reforms  of  transportation  abuses  and  service  deficiencies, 
and  its  prevention  of  over-capitalization  and  cut-throat  stock-job- 


52  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

bing  competition  that  would  mean  eventual  combination,  has  gone 
far  to  satisfy  the  desires  for  reform  of  practical  opponents  of  tho 
methods  by  which  certain  public  utility  agencies  had  plundered  the 
community. 

In  New  York,  also,  the  last  municipal  electricity  plant  has 
gone  out  of  existence. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  probability  that  any  of  the  private 
American  undertakings  investigated  by  the  Civic  Federation  Com- 
mission will  be  taken  over  by  the  municipality  which  it  serves.  But 
there  is  a  probability  th&t  any  one  of  the  municipal  undertak- 
ings, except  water,  may  be  sold  to  private  agencies  by  the  community 
by  which  it  is  now  owned.  The  author  of  a  work  on  the  subject 
recently  issued  gives  a  list  of  thirty  municipal  electric  undertakings 
sold  to  companies  in  the  fourteen  months  ending  February  last, 
with  no  transfers  conversely. 

The  present  sentiment  in  the  trades  union  world  as  to  public 
ownership  in  general  may  be  indicated  by  the  vote  taken  at  Norfolk 
last  November  at  the  convention  of  the  American  Federation  of 
Labor  on  government  ownership  of  railroads :  Delegates  for,  50 ; 
against,  154. 

Two  years  ago,  when  the  Civic  Federation  Commission  was  in 
Great  Britain,  a  labor  member — an  enthusiastic  municipal  owner- 
ship man — on  one  occasion,  in  the  presence  of  a  circle  of  British 
unionist  Socialists,  said  to  me,  not  gently:  "You  can't  stand  up 
to-day  in  a  union  meeting  in  the  United  States  and  oppose  munic- 
ipal ownership  \"  If  so :  Time  works  its  changes.  I  can  to-day. 

In  Great  Britain,  during  my  visit  in  the  spring  of  this  year,  the 
leader  of  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association  said  to  me :  "There's 
a  lull  at  present  in  the  municipal  ownership  movement."  The  same 
week  the  Secretary  of  the  London  Municipal  Reformers  informed 
me :  "The  pro-municipalists  could  not  to-day  initiate  any  new 
municipal  scheme  whatever.  That  wave  is  all  passed  over.  The 
County  Council  is  now  trying  to  find  out  where  it  has  really  left  us 
financially." 

This  "lull"  is  everywhere  in  Britain.  The  continually  rising 
tide  of  local  taxes,  the  characters  taking  a  hand  in  the  game  of  poli- 
tics, the  exultations  of  the  Socialists  over  municipalist  victories,  the 
disappointing  outcome  of  the  municipal  ventures  already  made  ex- 
cept in  undertakings  in  a  few  large  cities,  the  utter  failures  such 
as  the  Thames  steamboats  and  municipal  telephones,  and  the  evi- 
dences of  the  growing  political  strength  of  public  employees — these 
points  are  more  frequently  the  subjects  of  comment  now  than  they 
could  possibly  have  been  five  years  ago  at  the  stage  at  that  time  of 
public  experience. 

Even  in  Glasgow,  municipal  ownership  is  on  the  defensive. 
Its  telephone,  its  housing  scheme,  its  liquor  traffic,  its  increase  in 
rates,  its  questionable  methods  of  promoting  partisan  bills  in  Par- 
liament have  brought  their  reaction. 

I  found  in  April  in  England  that  prominent  trade  union  men 
who  had  been  elected  to  legislative  office  were  by  no  means  disap- 
pointed at  the  recent  turn  in  municipal  affairs.  They  were  begin- 
ning to  speak  their  mind.  "Some  partisans,"  said  one  of  them, 
referring  to  the  radicals  who  had  been  pushing  municipalism  in  the 
unions,  "would  cut  off  free  speech."  I  heard  much  talk  about  com- 
pelling the  Socialists  and  semi-Socialists  to  retire  to  the  background. 


THE    CHANGE    IN   JOHN    BURNS.  53 

I  asked  the  tailor  ex-Mayor  of  Battersea  who  was  to  be  the  leader 
in  this  uprising  in  the  unions  against  the  extremists.  He  instantly 
replied :  "John  Burns." 

The  change  in  twenty  years  in  John  Burns'  views  and  activ- 
ities is  parallel  to  that  of  many  thousands  of  workingmen  in  Great 
Britain  who  have  moved  from  crude  radicalism  to  opportunism  by 
the  political  route.  Burns,  who  once  waved  the  red  flag  and  com- 
manded the  plaudits  of  twenty  thousand  men  in  a  single  crowd 
while  in  his  stentor's  voice  he  proclaimed  "the  class  struggle"  and 
called  on  the  British  workers  to  "take  into  their  own  hands  the  land, 
machinery,  capital,  and  all  means  of  production,"  is  now  retaining 
the  votes  of  the  masses  in  a  course  in  which  he  is  gradually  freeing 
himself  from  the  network  of  Socialist  and  municipal  devices  that 
have  in  practice  proved  futile.  His  speeches  in  Parliament  have 
indicated,  as  the  thermometer  does  the  weather,  especially  during 
the  last  two  years,  the  modification  in  the  tendencies  of  the  British 
working  class  voters.  His  views  on  the  causes  of  pauperism  and  the 
public  methods  of  preventing  poverty  have  undergone  a  radical 
change. 

On  January  30  of  the  present  year,  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
the  Socialist-Labor  members  Snowden,  Macdonald,  and  Pete  Cur- 
ran,  during  a  debate  on  the  unemployed  problem,  taunted  Burns 
with  abandoning  his  old  principles.  He  had  recently  jeered  at  pro- 
posals "mads  by  doss-house  economists  and  soup-kitchen  reform- 
ers/' In  his  reply  Burns  said  ("Daily  Telegraph")  :  "Pauperism 
would  continue  to  grow  if  the  unemployed  movement  was  exploited 
by  the  type  of  persons  who  came  to  London  not  to  work  but  to  live 
on  public  funds,  private  charity,  and  the  eleemosynary  aid  which 
was  intended  for  better  people."  "There  had  never  been  more  non- 
sense talked  about  pauperism  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  than 
in  the  last  few  years."  "The  time  had  come  when  the  provision  of 
pauperizing  relief  in  this  country  should  be  arrested,  and  they  [the 
government]  would  concentrate  themselves  on  bedrock  causes  and 
transient  palliatives  which  would  lead  to  permanent  reform.  He 
wanted  no  more  state  workshops  or  municipal  expedients,  which 
would  accentuate  the  difficulty  and  make  the  remedy  worse  than 
the  disease." 

Burns  is  up  with  the  procession  of  English  voters.  Prepon- 
derant working  class  sentiment  has  shown  at  the  polls  that  it  will 
not  soon  again  demand  more  municipal  dwellings  and  workshops, 
river  steamboats,  tramway  supply  foundries,  or  any  of  the  class  of 
"municipal  expedients"  which  have  had  their  popularity  in  the 
prospect  and  their  disappointment  in  the  fact. 

London,  which  when  our  Commission  visited  it  two  years  ago 
had  officially  municipal  ownership  in  full  swing,  has  undergone  a 
popular  revulsion  against  it.  In  the  twenty-eight  boroughs  hardly 
enough  municipal  ownership  Councillors  remain  to  maintain  a 
discussion.  In  the  London  County  Council,  also,  the  Socialist-Pro- 
gressive majority  has  disappeared,  and  the  opposition  is  carefully 
looking  into  the  true  financial  condition  of  the  municipal  ventures 
so  hopefully  launched  in  the  heyday  of  optimistic  municipalism. 
If  there  was  any  one  scheme  which  seemed  to  its  supporters  certain 
of  great  profits  it  was  that  of  the  London  County  Council  tram- 
ways. Its  outcome  to  the  present  time  may  be  taken  as  a  criterion 


54  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

of  the  very  best  that  rampant  municipalization  in  London  has  given 
to  the  world.  And  what  actually  is  the  result?  At  a  meeting  of 
our  Committee  of  Twenty-One,  at  St.  Ermin's  Hotel,  July  3,  1906, 
to  hear  leading  representatives  of  the  municipal  ownership  move- 
ment in  Great  Britain,  Mr.  T.  McKinnon  Wood  said  of  the  County 
Council's  tramways:  "The  total  capital  is  £4,818,000.  This  in- 
cludes the  purchase  money.  The  sinking  fund  is  about  £450,000. 
Of  the  £4,818,000  capital,  we  have  paid  off  £607,000,  and  of  that 
£607,000  about  £450,000  is  sinking  fund.  We  have  also  put  a 
sum  of  £290,000  to  relief  of  rates."  But,  alas !  on  March  28,  1908, 
a  special  report  on  the  tramways,  made  by  the  President  of  the 
Institute  of  Chartered  Accountants  and  others,  was  laid  before 
the  County  Council.  In  brief,  it  showed  that  the  £293,592  that 
had  been  applied  1897-1904  in  relief  of  rates  ought  to  have  been 
applied  to  making  up  a  loss  exceeding  £1,000,000  overlooked  in  the 
Council's  methods  of  bookkeeping  on  the  displacement  of  the  horse 
traction  system.  Besides,  on  "improvements  undertaken  or  pro- 
posed in  connection  with  tramway  schemes,"  "a  substantial,  but  as 
yet  unascertained,  proportion  of  £387,438,"  should  have  been 
charged  to  tramways  capital  account,  whereas  it  was  set  down  to 
the  general  improvement  account,  and  on  "improvements  for  the 
purpose  of  general  traffic,"  "a  considerable,  but  as  yet  unascer- 
tained, proportion  of  £864,121  should  also  have  been  charged  to 
tramways  capital  account."  That  is,  up  to  March  31,  1907,  the 
London  County  Council  tramways,  instead  of  earning  profits  of 
$1,500,000,  were  anywhere  fronr$4,000,000  to  $6,000,000  behind 
hand  on  the  accounts  mentioned,  with  nearly  another  million  dollars 
arrearages  on  renewals  and  central  office  charges.  Here  is  one  of 
the  fatal  flaws  in  municipal  ownership:  By  an  erroneous  alloca- 
tion of  costs  the  general  municipal  treasury  may  for  a  time  carry 
the  burden  of  low  fares,  blunders,  and  liberality  in  general — to 
come  to  a  disastrous  end  on  a  day  of  judgment  literally  as  sure  to 
arrive  as  taxation.  The  fatal  flaw  of  municipalism  is  in  the 
finances ;  that  is,  deficits  must  be  made  up  by  taxes. 

A    NECESSARY    PERSONAL    EXPLANATION. 

I  may  now  have  convinced  the  reader — (1)  that  Investigator 
Commons  defied  the  lightning  of  truth  the  day  he  sought  to  blast 
me  in  my  absence;  and  (2)  that  in  my  review  I  helped  to  bring 
out  the  vices  in  municipal  ownership  and  operation  that  on  being 
seen  carry  public  support  instead  to  the  principle  of  control.  But 
this  leaves  many — perhaps  most — of  my  readers  who  do  not  know 
me  still  not  satisfied  on  a  point  regarding  myself.  However  they 
may  have  veiled  their  allusions  to  the  motives  of  personal  interest 
affecting  me,  some  men  I  have  met  have  had  in  mind :  "What  were 
you  in  this  investigation  for?"  "What  did  you  get  out  of  it?" 
When  Investigator  Commons  told  the  Civic  Federation  membership 
of  my  acts  as  investigator  and  reviewer,  which  to  him  were  "im- 
possible," he  knew  well  the  injury  he  could  thus  work  me  with 
many  among  those  classed  as  "of  the  public"  and  "of  the  employers." 

Certain  candid  men,  English  or  American,  among  the  hun- 
dreds with  whom  this  work  has  brought  me  in  contact,  have  put  to 
me  queries  indirectly,  by  comment :  "You  have  a  good  thing  on  this 
Commission."  "You'll  come  out  well,  with  your  economical  habits." 


A   NECESSARY    PERSONAL   EXPLANATION.  55 

"In  England  we  hear  that  American  labor  men  on  government  or 
other  commissions  receive  large  salaries."  "You  are  in  company 
with  big  capitalists."  "We  Labor  delegates  in  England  can  seldom 
afford  to  put  up  at  first-class  hotels." 

This  from  the  labor  column  of  a  New  York  evening  newspaper, 
after  a  line  to  the  effect  that  the  labor  men  of  the  Twenty-One  all 
had  good  trade  union  records:  "They  should  be  favorable  to  public 
ownership ;  but  I  happen  to  know  that  some  of  them  are  not — why, 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand."  And  with  it  a  sermon  on  the  evil 
intent  of  the  capitalists  backing  the  inquiry.  A  book  reviewer  in 
an  engineering  weekly  paper,  quoting  a  part  of  Investigator  Com- 
mons' double-edged  reluctant  personal  explanation,  admires  his 
"ideals"  as  therein  expressed  and  lauds  his  impartiality,  but  finds 
that  my  review,  "valuable"  from  my  "being  a  trade  unionist,"  is 
only  "an  argument." 

When  Investigator  Commons  and  I  traveled  together  in  Great 
Britain  I  usually  found  that  the  second  day  we  were  in  any  city  I 
was  being  classed  by  the  political  unionists  as  "with  the  capitalists." 

So,  to  satisfy  the  last  possible  query,  and  to  make  plain  the 
principle  on  which  I  do  what  public  work  I  can,  I  shall  tell  now 
what  I  made  out  of  my  work  for  this  Commission,  and,  while  on  tho 
subject,  out  of  various  other  tasks  as  labor  representative  that  [ 
have  undertaken.  My  time  of  service  for  labor  warrants  me  in 
putting  an  end  to  my  habit  of  reticence  in  the  matter. 

The  salaries  of  the  Commission's  American  engineers  and  ac- 
countants, and  of  those  Commissioners  that  gave  up  their  regular 
positions  for  a  time,  and  of  the  labor  investigators,  were  placed 
about  the  point  of  their  accustomed  earnings  or  a  small  percentage 
higher.  Mine  was  put  at  $200  a  month,  full  time ;  the  United  Gar- 
ment Workers  of  America  paid  me  $30  a  week  for  getting  out 
their  periodical,  leaving  me  a  day  or  two  a  week  free  for  occasional 
other  earnings.  The  allowance  for  hotel  and  transportation  ex- 
penses for  Commissioners  and  investigators  was  $10  a  da}T,  except 
during  the  ocean  passages,  which  took  a  special  sum  apart. 

Toward  the  close  of  my  engagement  I  drew  up  a  memorandum, 
copies  of  which  I  gave  separately  to  two  members  of  the  Civic 
Federation.  As  to  salary,  it  showed  that  within  the  time  of  my 
connection  with  the  Commission  I  had  declined  to  draw  anything 
for  a  week  at  one  stage  of  the  work  and  two  months  at  another,  the 
latter  being  time  I  spent  in  Xew  York,  without  earnings,  waiting 
for  the  meeting  of  the  Twenty-One,  before  returning  to  Europe, 
April,  1907.  As  to  expenses,  the  sums  I  drew  were  less  than  the 
amount  I  was  entitled  to  draw  by  $1,575.  These  two  items  of  un- 
paid time  and  undrawn  expenses  I  had  had  it  in  my  power  to  con- 
vert into  more  than  $2,000  cash  to  my  account,  with  no  dispute 
about  it.  I  also  paid  out  of  my  salary,  without  rendering  bills,  my 
quota  of  certain  extra  traveling  expenses  incurred  while  with  the 
Commissioners  on  tour  in  Great  Britain,  all  my  own  entertainment 
bills  for  labor  men  and  others  while  interviewing  them,  the  outlay 
for  several  trips  in  America  which  some  of  the  Commissioners  might 
have  deemed  not  necessary,  the  unitemizable  expenditures  for  wear 
and  tear  and  accident  in  travel,  my  recent  trip  to  England  to  inter- 
view managers,  and  the  petty  expenses  connected  with  the  Com- 
mission since  April  1,  1907.  This  defence  against  the  attack  of 


56  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

Investigator  Commons  I  print  at  my  own  cost,  every  copy  being 
issued  gratuitous^. 

The  expense  account  I  handed  in,  instead  of  being  made  up 
according  to  actual  outlay  or  simply  by  drawing  the  maximum,  as 
to  which  all  sending  in  expense  bills  could  exercise  their  option, 
was  set  down  at  railroad  fare  and  the  per  diem  allowed,  not  by  my 
own  richer  typographical  union,  but  by  the  garment  workers.  I  de- 
clined my  salary  for  the  months  in  New  York  that  it  might  be  seen 
that  I  was  waiting  to  perform  my  duty  when  the  Twenty-One  met 
and  not  to  draw  money. 

After  thus  waiting  from  December  1,  1906,  until  in  Febru- 
ary, 1907,  I  was  made  Secretary  of  the  Committee  of  Four,  and  I 
drew  up  suggestions  for  the  first  drafts  of  sections  of  its  report. 
When,  as  the  weeks  dragged  on,  it  became  evident  that  months  more 
must  elapse  before  the  expected  meeting  would  take  place,  I  re- 
signed this  position  and  went  my  way.  With  other  work  open  to 
me  on  the  Commission,  I  could  have  been  on  salary  with  it  at  lea.?t 
six  months  longer. 

My  "good  thing"  therefore  has  resulted  in  less — by  hundreds 
of  dollars — than  I  would  have  earned  had  I  remained  with  the  (rai- 
ment Workers  during  the  time  I  was  with  the  Commission. 

During  the  months  I  was  waiting  I  did  some  work  for  the 
Civic  Federation.  I  assisted  in  the  details  of  getting  up  the  annual 
meeting,  collected  facts  of  record  and  interviewed  persons  in  con- 
nection with  its  child  labor  work,  and  wrote  and  delivered  an  ad- 
dress on  its  welfare  department  which  was  issued  in  pamphlet  form. 
For  these  services  I  declined  the  pay  repeatedly  offered  me  by  the 
Manager. 

Just  before  leaving  New  York  I  wrote  Investigator  Commons 
the  foregoing  points  in  outline. 

I  have  been  doing  this  kind  of  work,  to  the  extent  that  I  have 
been  able,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century. 

When,  five  years  ago,  anticipating  its  sale  to  a  politician,  I 
bought  the  New  York  "Unionist,"  then  the  semi-official  publication 
of  Typographical  Union  No.  6  (which  has  seven  thousand  dues- 
paying  members,  its  scale  being  from  $21  to  $33  a  week),  every 
President,  or  every  living  representative  of  the  presidency,  for  more 
than  twenty  years  wrote  that  from  his  personal  experience  with  me 
he  had  confidence  in  my  intention  to  put  high  character  into  their 
little  fortnightly  craft  paper — which,  unfortunately,  on  two  occa- 
sions had  been  carried  into  practical  politics.  I  issued  it  during  a 
Mayoralty  campaign  one  year  and  a  Presidential  campaign  the 
following  without  mention  of  politics  in  either  reading  or  advertis- 
ing columns.  I  sold  the  paper  ten  months  before  an  election  for 
the  same  price  I  had  paid  tor  it.  Its  income  I  had  put  into  its  im- 
provement, its  issuance  an  avocation  unrequited  by  profits.  My 
chief  satisfaction  was  in  contributing  to  the  credit  of  my  organiza- 
tion. 

I  was  two  years  and  ten  months  Chairman-Treasurer  (mana- 
ger) of  the  printers'  farm.  One  year  we  had  more  than  ninety 
members  working  on  park  land;  the  next  year  sixty-three  persons 
on  a  farm  of  166  acres.  Writing  afterward,  the  Secretary-Treas- 
urer of  No.  6  said :  "I  can  testify  that  in  the  years  you  were  on  the 


A  NECESSARY  PERSONAL  EXPLANATION.        5T 

Farm  Committee  yon  not  only  never  drew  a  cent  from  the  union 
for  either  salary  or  expenses,  but  as  Chairman-Treasurer  you 
handed  to  me,  as  contributions  from  outside  parties,  the  sum  of 
$1,500,  which  went  to  the  support  of  the  farm." 

For  years  I  was  on  one  committee  or  another  in  this  great 
union — on  the  out-of-work  committee  several  times,  aggregating  a 
year  and  a  half ;  on  special  work  for  families  of  impoverished  mem- 
bers; on  investigating  the  accounts  for  two  strike  years,  involving 
the  auditing  of  thousands  of  receipts  and  expenditures  amounting 
to  more  than  $100,000,  a  piece  of  work  taking  sixteen  weeks  of  the 
<x)mmitteemen's  time  not  given  to  their  regular  office  work.  The 
union  has  its  scale  of  allowances  for  such  committee  work.  I  never 
•drew  anything. 

As  Samuel  Gompers  will  testify,  while  I  held  in  the  years 
1892-'95  the  position  of  General  Lecturer  on  Initiative  and  Kefer- 
endum,  American  Federation  of  Labor,  traveling  much  in  New 
England,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  and  to  the  Pacific  Coast,  lectur- 
ing on  the  subject,  I  never  drew  a  dollar  from  the  Federation  for 
salary  or  expenses.  My  terms  to  organizations  of  all  kinds,  labor 
or  civic,  that  paid  me  at  all,  were  my  hotel  and  transportation  billo. 
I  uniformly  gave  my  time  for  nothing.  In  numerous  cases  I  paid 
my  own  expenses. 

I  paid  my  own  way  when,  during  four  months  in  Switzerland 
in  1888,  I  got  up  the  facts  relating  to  that  country  in  my  "Direct 
Legislation."  I  gave  away  thousands  of  copies  of  the  work.  I 
wrote  numerous  articles  on  the  question  for  all  sorts  of  publications, 
receiving  pay  for  less  than  a  score.  I  published  the  early  numbers 
of  the  "Direct  Legislation  Kecord"  at  a  loss  of  full  50  per  cent  of 
its  cost.  I  contributed  in  cash  to  the  formation  of  direct  legislation 
leagues. 

My  services  as  editor  under  salary  on  official  labor  union 
organs,  in  all  covering  periods  summing  up  four  years,  have  been 
compensated  at  union  rates.  But  the  years  in  addition  during 
which  I  have  given  my  time  to  the  social  reform  press  have  yielded 
me  far  less — perhaps  35  per  cent — than  what  I  have  regularly 
earned  while  at  my  occupation  on  morning  newspapers.  In  1883- 
'84  my  writing  for  the  popular  workingmen's  paper  of  New  York 
was  gratuitous;  in  1887-'89,  as  labor  editor  on  the  weekly  paper 
which  started  as  a  "land  and  labor"  advocate,  I  voluntarily  reduced 
my  salary  20  per  cent  after  a  few  weeks'  work,  and  it  was  never 
restored;  as  associate  editor,  1889-793,  on  another  social  reform 
weekly,  my  salary  was  one-third  less  than  what  I  immediately  drew 
on  going  back  to  proof-reading  on  a  morning  daily.  In  writing 
articles  on  labor  or  politico-economic  subjects  my  rule  has  been  to 
give  outright  to  struggling  publishers  and  to  gauge  my  bills  to 
others  according  to  their  purse  and  their  disposition  to  let  me  have 
my  full  say.  Since  I  decided,  twenty-five  years  ago,  to  speak  out 
my  conceptions  of  human  justice,  I  have  written  nothing  I  did  not 
wholly  believe ;  but  many  occasions  naturally  have  arisen  when  the 
full  expression  of  my  economic  faith  was  not  appropriate  to  the  sub- 
ject in  hand. 

But — politics?  I  have  never  handled  a  dollar  of  politicians' 
money.  I  have  never  asked  for  office  or  a  vote'  for  myself.  I  have 
at  no  time  been  in  politics  with  either  of  the  great  parties.  I  have 


58  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT 

in  no  instance  traded  on  my  connection  with  the  labor  movement 
for  votes  or  any  public  position  whatever. 

I  was  active  in  New  York  in  1886-'87  as  a  member  of  the- 
United  Labor  Party.  As  Treasurer  of  the  Printing  Trades  Legion 
of  the  campaign  of  1886  I  paid  on  the  wind-up  its  residuary  debtt. 
As  Treasurer  of  the  Sixteenth  Assembly  District  up  to  March,. 
1888,  I  took  care  of  its  recurring  deficits.  As  Treasurer  of  the 
Trade  and  Labor  Conference  that  submitted  demands  of  organized 
labor  to  the  State  Constitutional  Convention  in  1893-'94,  I  financed 
its  current  printing  and  similar  bills,  the  vouchers  of  which  I  yet 
have.  As  a  delegate  or  committeeman  sent  frequently  to  the  Albany 
and  Trenton  state  houses  in  regard  to  labor  or  direct  legislation 
matters,  I  never  received  a  fee,  and,  with  the  exception  in  making 
a  trip  to  call  a  New  York  Governor's  attention  to  the  Labor  Bu- 
reau's neglect  of  child  labor,  always  paid  my  own  expenses. 

Since  the  United  Labor  Party's  decline  in  1887  I  have  been 
active  in  but  one  political  campaign.  When  Seth  Low  ran  for 
Mayor  against  the  two  old  parties  in  1897,  attracted  by  his  labor 
plank  and  his  independence,  I  did  a  fair  amount  of  service,  with- 
out any  form  of  compensation,  as  the  labor  committeemen  of  that 
year  knew.  I  presided  at  labor  conferences,  took  off  time  from  my 
work  to  address  meetings,  and  wrote  a  pamphlet  published  by  the 
campaign  committee. 

An  opening  for  "a  future,"  made  me  by  friendly  politicians 
of  the  great  parties,  has  been  no  rarity.  A  ladder  to  climb  to  the 
respectful  consideration  of  political  managers,  put  before  me  by  the 
small  parties,  has  not  been  wholly  unfamiliar.  In  1887  the  Central 
Committee  of  the  United  Labor  Party  slated  me  as  candidate  for 
State  Senator.  In  1892  a  committee  proffered  me  the  nomination 
for  Mayor  on  the  Populists'  ticket,  though  I  opposed  much  of  their 
platform.  In  1897  a  place  on  its  county  ticket  was  tendered  me  by 
the  Low  party.  All  declined. 

My  theories  have  brought  me  to  the  study,  not  of  the  game  of 
politics,  but  of  a  political  economy  as  radical  as  justice. 

But,  it  will  be  asked,  "How  could  this  career  be  followed  by 
a  'workingman'  ?" 

I  have  lived  the  last  quarter  of  a  century  without  anxiety  over 
getting  along.  First,  I  have  had  but  one  other  person  to  care  for, 
and  we  are  both  scrupulously  watchful  in  the  management  of  our 
outlay.  Day  compared  with  day,  my  salary  in  the  years  I  have 
worked  as  proofreader  on  a  daily  newspaper  has  been  more  than 
the  average  earnings  of  New  York's  professional  men.  Two  in- 
heritances, of  which  I  was  always  sure,  if  I  lived,  came  to  me — one 
in  1887,  one  in  1904 — in  amount  not  far  from  $10,000.  When,  in 
1883,  I  decided  to  branch  out  into  my  own  preferred  channels  of 
public  service  I  had,  as  I  yet  have,  health,  a  knowledge  of  the  print- 
ing business  that  promised  a  continuous  opportunity,  prospects  for 
some  provision  against  old  age,  and  the  art  of  making  a  dollar 
worth  one  hundred  cents  with  no  waste. 

But  when  I  had  been  nearly  ten  years  following  my  chosen 
methods  in  my  own  way  and  with  my  own  means,  not  long  after  I 
began  my  propaganda  for  direct  legislation,  one  person  convinced 
me  that  I  could  do  better  work  with  an  assistance  that  came  with- 
out terms  and  that  could  never  result  in  influencing  my  freedom 
in  thought  or  action.  That  one  person,  alone,  I  have  permitted  to 


A  NECESSARY  PERSONAL  EXPLANATION.        5£ 

give  me  money  unearned  by  hard  labor.  From  the  fund  thus  com- 
ing I  have  drawn  to  meet  a  share  of  the  heavier  expenses  above 
mentioned,  to  compensate  me  in  part  for  time  lost  from  work  and 
on  occasions  to  aid  where  there  was  suffering  or  feeble  human 
endeavor  for  betterment. 

If  on  reading  this  statement  any  three  reputable  members  "on 
part  of  the  public"  or  "on  part  of  the  employers"  in  the  Civic  Feder- 
ation should  wish  further  particulars,  I  shall  refer  them  to  Samuel 
Gompers,  J.  W.  Bramwood,  and  B.  A.  Larger  for  decision  as  to 
whether  their  .inquiry  is  made  in  good  faith  and  is  of  moment  to 
me  or  the  public,  and  if  these  representative  labor  men  should  say 
it  is,  I'll  submit  in  the  matter  to  every  point  within  the  searching 
power  of  an  attorney  or  a  committee. 

It  is  due  those  gentlemen  of  the  Commission  who  are  connected 
with  large  enterprises  to  say  that  not  one  of  them  ever  uttered  in 
my  presence  a  word  tending  to  influence  improperly  other  members 
or  the  investigators  in  the  slightest  degree. 

I  have  aimed  to  convince  the  reader  of  the  truth  of  all  I  have 
herein  written,  going  on  to  the  last  question  that  men,  in  their 
skepticism,  usually  raise.  Investigator  Commons'  charges  and  in- 
sinuations I  could  ignore  only  by  leaving  the  impression  with  the 
non-working  class  members  of  the  Civic  Federation,  and  citizens  in 
general  who  had  read  his  attack  on  me,  that  here  possibly  was  a 
case  of  a  workingman  representative,  indifferent  to  his  work  as  in- 
vestigator, abandoning  his  bounden  duty  of  impartiality  and  acting 
as  counsel  for  a  side  that  could  command  a  fee.  In  undertaking  to 
reply  to  him,  I  could  not  leave  the  controversy  until  it  was  ex- 
hausted, notwithstanding  the  tedious  work  of  particularizing  and 
correcting  his  errors  of  statement  and  aberrations  of  view,  and  de- 
spite my  reluctance  natural  in  going  into  the  private  matters  I 
have  detailed.  Because  Investigator  Commons  aimed  outrageously 
to  destroy  my  life  work  I  have  been  obliged  to  show  what  that  life 
work  has  been. 

Never  have  I  written  a  single  line  "in  support  of  the  capital- 
ists." In  opposing  the  economic  blunder  of  municipal  ownership 
I  am  "on  the  side  of  the  capitalists"  precisely  as  in  opposing  gov- 
ernment ownership  of  railroads  the  American  Federation  of  Labor 
and  the  railroad  brotherhoods  are  on  the  side  of  the  capitalists.  I 
have  constantly  advocated  the  principle  of  withholding  legal  privil- 
eges by  which  capital  may  lay  tribute  on  labor. 

I  have  presented  in  this  record  no  story  of  sacrifices;  I  have 
described  a  course  marked  by  satisfactions. 

When,  contemplating  the  American  trade  union  movement  to- 
day, I  realize  that  the  fathers  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  families 
have  through  organization  obtained  in  the  last  quarter  of  a  century 
a  reduction  of  a  fifth  or  more  in  the  day's  toil  and  an  advance  of  a 
fourth  or  more  in  wages,  to  the  benefit  of  their  wives  and  children, 
I  am  rejoiced  that  I  have  been  one  of  the  millions  in  the  movement. 
And  if  in  the  course  of  the  struggle  I  have  at  times  put  forth  a 
helpful  suggestion  at  the  needed  hour,  I  am  glad  I  was  given  the 
opportunity.  And  further,  when  my  views  as  to  a  reign  of  justice 
in  society  gain  once  in  a  while  their  share  of  thoughtful  attention,  I 
feel  that  the  world  has  paid  me  whatever  debt  it  may  have  owed  me. 


(Following  are  the  separate  reviews  of  the  joint  labor  report  by  the 
two  labor  investigators:) 

THE  LABOR  REPORT 


By  J.  W.  SULLIVAN 


My  colleague  and  myself,  in  closing  our  joint  inquiry  as  to 
wages  and  conditions  in  tji3  British  gas  undertakings  visited,  agree 
in  saying : 

"Summarizing  what  precedes,  with  the  exception  of  the  twelve-hour 
stations  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Company,  and  taking  into  account 
the  general  level  of  wages  in  the  several  localities,  it  cannot  be  said  that 
there  is  any  material  difference  between  the  public  and  private  under- 
takings in  the  wages  of  stokers  or  in  the  average  wages  of  the  shift- 
workers  in  the  retort  houses.  The  differences  that  occur  do  not  show  a 
prevalence  one  way  or  the  other,  but  they  tend  to  follow  pretty  closely 
the  general  level  of  wages  in  the  locality,  irrespective  of  whether  the 
undertaking  is  managed  by  a  municipality  or  by  a  private  company. 
The  case  of  the  twelve-hour  shifts  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Company 
is  peculiar  and  requires  the  discussion  of  another  aspect  of  the  question 
— the  amount  of  work  done  by  the  stokers." 

Relative  to  the  electricity  undertakings,  the  investigation  sums  x 

up: 

"It  has  been  found  impossible  to  make  a  satisfactory  comparison  of 
the  wages  paid  in  electrical  undertakings,  on  account  of  the  wide  differ- 
ences in  machinery,  equipment,  character  of  work,  size  of  station,  range 
of  wages  and  names  of  occupations.  The  subdivision  of  labor  varies 
greatly  from  place  to  place,  and  a  large  establishment  with  a  minute 
subdivision  of  specialized  workers  may  have  extremely  high  wages  for  a 
few  and  extremely  low  for  others,  although  the  names  of  the  occupations 
may  be  the  same  as  those  where  the  work  is  less  subdivided.  A  careful 
examination  of  different  payrolls  and  different  stations,  however,  leads 
to  the  conclusion  that,  as  in  the  gas  undertakings,  there  is  no  pre- 
dominating tendency  one  way  or  the  other,  and  the  differences  depend 
mainly  upon  the  differences  in  the  general  level  of  the  wages  of  the 
locality." 

The  prevailing  wage  policy  in  the  British  municipalized  un- 
dertakings investigated  is  to  pay  the  skilled  workmen  trade  union 
rates  and  the  unskilled  "a  minimum  wage."  The  conclusions  in 
the  foregoing  paragraphs  refer  to  the  mechanics  and  semi-skilled 
men  among  the  gas  and  electrical  workers.  With  such  exceptions 
as  an  alleged  overstocking  of  the  works  with  labor,  as  at  a  munic- 
ipal gas  station  in  Manchester  mentioned  in  the  report,  and  a 
favoring  of  hand  labor  in  preference  to  machine  labor,  as  in  the 
Leicester  municipal  gas  works,  skilled  or  partly  skilled  labor  had 
about  equal  chances  with  the  two  forms  of  management,  municipal 
and  company.  That  is,  in  these  two  industries,  in  all  but  the 
most  poorly  paid  forms  of  labor,  municipalization  has  not  raised 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  61 


the  wage  or  workday  conditions  of  the  employees  above  conditions 
in  the  private  undertakings,  the  exceptions  noted  above  showing 
the  dubious  advantages  of  possibly  providing  municipal  employees 
with  work  at  the  expense  of  the  community  or  furnishing  them 
with  a  leverage  for  the  play  of  politics. 

But  with  respect  to  "common,  unorganized  labor"  the  inves- 
tigators found  a  difference  somewhat  favorable  to  British  municipal 
employees.  The  report  cites  facts  that  explain  the  causes. 
(1)  The  municipal  laborer  is  a  picked  man.  (2)  This  class  of 
labor  offers  an  especial  field  for  the  Municipal  Employees'  Asso- 
ciation, the  new  political  trade  unionists,  and  the  Socialists  and 
humanitarians  of  all  walks  of  life  who,  demanding  for  labor  at 
least  "a  living  wage,"'  desire  to  redeem  municipal  employment 
from  participation  in  Great  Britain's  almost  universal  sweatshop 
labor  market.  Steady,  ablebodied  and  capable  of  exerting  on  city 
councils  a  combined  pressure,  municipal  unskilled  laborers,  no 
matter  how  organized  or  whether  organized  at  all,  obtain  better 
terms  than  the  employing  councillors  accord  to  the  men  they  hire 
in  their  private  capacity  for  similar  work. 

Councils  recognize  a  "minimum  wage" — a  level  below  which 
a  municipality  will  not  fix  any  grade  of  pay.  Yet  it  is  to  be  noted 
that  the  percentage  of  the  municipal  minimum  above  "the  pri- 
vate minimum/'  as  quoted  by  the  labor  investigators,  may  in  some 
communities  signify  little  more  than  a  comparison  between  the 
city's  rate  for  the  choice  among  laborers  and  the  general  rate  for 
those  private  undertakings  which  employ  men  in  perhaps  the  least 
requited  of  occupations.  That  is,  the  municipal  laborers,  shown 
by  rigid  examination  as  to  physique  and  character  to  be  sound, 
steady  and  nearer  youth  than  age,  earn  more  than  the  mass  in 
the  overstocked  labor  market,  including  the  unreliable,  the  gray- 
haired  and  other  classes  unqualified  for  municipal  work.  On  the 
average  the  money  difference  is  shown  by  but  a  few  shillings  a  week, 
though  in  selecting  certain  extremes  for  comparison  a  considerable 
percentage  may  be  figured  out.  The  widest  contrast,  at  Leicester, 
9s.,  very  probably  reflects  the  same  influences  that  sent  that  city's 
Socialist  representatives  to  Parliament.  In  several  of  the  cities 
visited,  indeed  perhaps  all,  certain  large  private  establishments 
give,  in  various  ways,  approximately  the  same  wage  terms  as  the 
municipality,  or  even  better,  as  at  Cadbury's  and  Tangey's,  in 
Birmingham. 

In  the  case  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Gas  Company  of  Lon- 
don— to  quote  an  example  in  which  a  system  has  been  worked  out 
independently  of  the  leveling-up  influences  bearing  on  city  gov- 
ernments, the  co-operative  features  of  which,  examined  at  such 
length,  do  not  attract  the  unqualified  admiration  of  the  investi- 
gators— this  is  to  be  said:  Its  employees'  stock  in  the  company 
represents  a  larger  sum  than  is  similarly  possessed  by  any  equal 
number  of  laborers  of  the  class  in  England,  and  its  provisions  for 
sickness,  death  and  old  age  are  unusual.  Ninety  odd  per  cent. 
of  the  employees  of  these  works  save  something.  A  Labor  Liberal 


62  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

member  of  Parliament  said  of  the  company  to  one  of  our  com- 
mittee: "A  gas  worker  can  nowhere  get  a  better  job/7  The  Co- 
operative Union  accepts  the  works  as  a  genuine  example  of  co- 
operation. The  shift  men  where  twelve  hours  are  worked  them- 
selves adopted  that  workday  by  a  vote.  The  company  asserts  that 
it  never  opposed  union  labor  in  its  mechanical  departments,  and 
withdrew  its  opposition  to  the  gasworkers'  union  a  few  years  after 
the  strike  of  1889. 

Turning  now  to  the  tramways  and  light  railways,  we  find 
3,400  miles  in  the  United  Kingdom,  the  number  operated  by  all 
the  companies,  some  1,500,  being  less  than  the  mileage  owned  by 
a  single  American  company  in  several  instances.  The  number 
of  miles  operated  by  the  seven  companies  and  municipalities  in- 
vestigated by  our  experts  reached  perhaps  500,  about  Boston's 
mileage.  The  British  tramway  wage  situation  can  only  be  seen 
correctly  in  the  light  of  municipal  developments  out  of  what  were 
company  undertakings,  the  latter  invariably  being  far  different 
in  their  status  as  to  property  and  degree  of  progress  from  the  street 
railways  of  America.  Xo  street  car  undertaking  in  Great  Britain 
has  ever  been  a  "private"  enterprise  in  the  sense  in  which  the 
word  is  applied  in  this  country.  The  twenty-one  years'  term  of 
the  franchise,  the  veto  of  company  petitions  by  village  authorities, 
the  enormous  cost  of  Parliamentary  powers  and  local  assents,  and 
various  other  restrictions  non-existent  in  the  United  States,  shackle 
and  impoverish  British  tramway  company  management  and  con- 
sequently forbid  an  intelligent  investigator  to  employ  British  ex- 
ample to  illustrate  possibilities  in  America  through  change  from 
private  to  municipal  ownership.  British  tramways  have  always 
been  semi-municipal.  The  English  field  of  tramway  exploitation, 
if  common  report  in  Britain  is  correct,  has  been  occupied  by  only 
the  most  venturesome  promoters,  and  their  work  has  certainly  not 
been  ordinarily  successful  in  the  development  of  the  industry,  as 
compared  with  American  standards  and  results.  The  burdens  of 
the  companies  have  usually  permitted  them  to  win  only  the  barest 
returns  by  means  of  "skinning"  methods  throughout.  The  larg- 
est private  British  tramways  company  passed  its  dividend  last 
July.  Whether  others  of  the  largest  companies  will  ever  meet 
their  obligations  is  a  common  doubt.  As  by  the  terms  of  their 
franchises  all  English  tramway  undertakings  may  be  taken  over  by 
the  municipalities,  directors  manage  their  properties  with  that  end 
in  view.  While  the  companies  seldom  equal  average  private  em- 
ployers in  ability  to  pay  the  wages  of  municipal  tramway  under- 
takings, the  municipalities  investigated  by  our  committee  are  the 
most  famous  scenes  of  notable  attempts  at  social  reform  carried 
on  both  by  the  champions  of  collectivist  ownership  and  humani- 
tarians endeavoring  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  slum  life  and  to  lower 
a  general  death  rate  that  gave  several  of  the  cities  in  question  an 
unenviable  reputation.  Higher  wages  in  the  municipality's  tram- 
ways, however,  is  not  the  invariable  rule.  The  private  Norwich 
tramways  manager  showed  that  the  company  paid  for  electrical 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  63 

workers  the  same  scale  as  the  city,  and  in  some  grades  claimed  20 
per  cent,  higher  than  Ipswich,  Yarmouth  and  Lowestoft.  It  is 
to  be  kept  in  mind  also  that  usually  only  the  most  promising  un- 
dertakings have  been  taken  over  by  the  cities.  As  a  result,  chiefly 
during  the  transition  from  horse  to  electric  traction,  British  munic- 
ipalities have  established  a  lead  as  to  wages  and  workday,  but 
by  no  means  a  notable  lead,  and  one  not  yet  finally  established. 
Compared,  however,  with  the  remarkable  changes  for  the  better 
in  wages  and  hours  in  the  American  street  car  industry  under 
companies  and  trade  unionism,  the  best  of  the  British  municipal 
labor  improvements  seem  hardly  more  than  trivial. 

Little  attention  has  been  given  in  the  report  to  the  class  of 
British  municipalizers  who,  with  indefinite  plans  and  revolution- 
ary principles,  would  carry  municipal  ownership  into  fields  wher- 
ever, in  their  optimism,  they  imagine  promise  of  a  speedy  remedy 
for  civic  abuses  or  economic  betterment  for  the  masses.  If  any  of 
the  utopian  schemes  of  these  municipalizers  had  still  bid  fair  to 
be  fulfilled,  doubtless  the  facts  would  have  been  given  passing 
recognition  and  the  hopeful  outlook  touched  upon.  Space  would 
have  been  given  to  any  probability  of  paying  new  ventures  spring- 
ing out  of  tried  and  successful  ones.  Omission  to  do  so  is  at  least 
to  be  noted.  Rather  are  there  indications  in  the  report  that  the 
tide  in  practical  municipalization  is  turned.  Where  advocates 
once  looked  for  a  constant  expansion,  this  has  been  arrested  by 
disillusion.  Government  ownership  of  undertakings  of  electricity 
and  light  railways  covering  supra-municipal  areas  may  be  called 
for,  but  there  the  practical  political  leaders  show  a  disposition  to 
halt.  With  regard  to  municipal  lodgings,  steamboats  and  miscel- 
laneous supplies,  there  has  been  reaction.  Platform  demands  may 
be  more  numerous  than  ever  with  extremely  radical  theorists  who 
have  the  ear  of  the  clamorous  among  the  hungry  masses,  but  the- 
recent  elections  have  gone  against  the  radical  sentiment,  and  ap- 
propriations from  councils  and  Parliament  are  commonly  expected 
to  cease  or  follow  slowly. 

To  put  the  foregoing  points  broadly,  these  are  the  general 
labor  results  of  municipalization  in  Great  Britain : 

(1)  The  wage  level  among  municipal  mechanics  and  other 
skilled  men  varies  little  if  any  from  the  trade  union  scale,  as  paid 
in  the  private  undertakings.  (2)  For  common  municipal  labor 
ihe  wages  and  workday  are  better  than  for  the  average  of  private 
labor,  the  difference  being  due  to  several  causes,  among  them  the 
individual  superiority  of  the  picked  municipal  men  and  the  influ- 
ence of  collectivism,  humanitarianism  and  socialist  politics.  (3) 
Industries  once  marked  out  by  British  municipalizers  as  areas  for 
municipal  employment  are  now  given  up  by  their  practical  leaders. 

In  America,  the  municipalized  enterprises  visited  by  pur  labor 
investigators  have  been  rich  mines  for  significant  facts  relating 
to  politics  rather  than  to  labor.  These  facts  are  not  usually  among 
those  heretofore  emphasized  by  the  American  advocates  of  munic- 
ipal ownership.  The  testimony  as  to  political  rottenness,  root  and 


€4  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

branch,  in  Syracuse,  Allegheny  and  Wheeling  is  conclusive.     The 
municipal  plants  examined  in  these  cities,  it  is  to  be  remembered,, 
were  selected  as  models  by  representative  municipalizers  of  the 
Commission.     Nor  is  the  politico-labor  situation  in  Detroit,  Cleve- 
land, Chicago  or  Richmond  at  all  settled  as  well  as  it  might  be. 
Just  which  of  the  secretaries  and  superintendents  at  Detroit  in 
the  thirteen  years  have  been  purely  political  appointments,  just 
how  many  of  the  trustees  have  been  put  on  the  commission  to 
serve  special  interests  rather  than  the  community,  just  to  what  de- 
gree organized  labor  has  employed  coercion  with  the  mayor,  and 
just  how  much  of  an  electrician  the  superintendent  of  electricity 
ought  to  be — fierce  argument  over  such  points,  as  well  as  the  actual 
cost  per  light,  have  kept  Detroit  in  the  heat  of  debate  ever  since 
the  public  electricity  station  was  established.       In  Cleveland,  the 
present  mayor  in  the  beginning  increased  his  reform  forces  in  the 
public  water  department  so  as  to  strengthen  his  vote  in  the  pri- 
maries— an  act  possible  at  all  times  also  under  the  next  and  suc- 
ceeding administrations,  which  may  be  bad  where  the  present  is 
good.     The  degree  of  purity  attained  by  the  present  administration 
is  attributable  to  the  officials  and  the  public  sentiment  aroused,  and 
not  to  municipalization.     In  Chicago,  where  civil  service  is  iron- 
clad, the  appointment  by  the  mayor  of  department  heads  and  even 
of  the  Civil  Service  Commission  itself,  has  more  than  once  proved 
a  vulnerable  point  in  the  civic  armor,  with  sad  results.     In  Detroit, 
Cleveland  or   Chicago  the  stability   of  the  municipally   operated 
enterprises  rests  largely  on  the  mayor,  who,  however  personally 
estimable  and  statesmanlike,  necessarily  becomes  as  a  candidate  a 
relatively  good  or  bad  politician,  representing  for  a  brief  term  a 
policy  that  may  change  with  his  successor.     It  is  plain  that  in  this 
political   situation  the  resultant  labor  problem  is  most   difficult. 
An  employee  can  only  hold  office  in  uncertainty,  with  its  consequent 
evils.     He  knows  not  what  a  coming  term  will  bring.     This  form 
of  disquiet  is  not  usual  in  private  employment.     That  it  exists 
in  Great  Britain  among  municipal  works  managers  is  a  certainty. 
The  foremost  operating  official  in  one  of  the  largest  private  tram- 
ways said:     "I  would  not  be  a  manager  for  a  corporation"  (munic- 
ipality).    A  civil  engineer  told  one  of  our  committeemen :     "Many 
managers  for  corporations  seek  to  get  away  by  finding  company 
positions." 

As  to  Eichmond,  its  exclusion  of  black  men  suggests  a  burn- 
ing race  question  indeed,  North  and  South,  were  municipalization 
generally  adopted  and  Richmond's  example  in  that  respect  fol- 
lowed. That  feature  vitiates  any  inferences  as  to  the  labor  prob- 
lem that  otherwise  might  be  made  with  the  Richmond  gas  works 
as  a  basis.  To  institute  a  comparison  with  Atlanta  and  reach  con- 
clusions relating  to  wages  in  municipal  vs.  private  plants,  while 
ignoring  the  real  and  obvious  factor  in  the  retort-house  wage  dif- 
ferences— the  race  question — would  be  simply  to  fail  to  record  all 
the  truth. 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  05 

Many  municipalizers,  as  did  the  Populists,  vigorously  uphold 
the  theory  that  the  root  oi'  the  evils  connected  with  municipal  ad- 
ministration in  America  is  found  in  the  money  power  seeking  fran- 
chises. While  anti-municipal  reformers  are  endeavoring  to  strip 
this  power  of  any  sinister  influence  it  possesses  by  refining  the 
provisions  for  the  regulation  of  franchise  grants  to  the  point  that 
will  leave  no  more  than  rightful  returns  for  investments,  the  munic- 
ipalizers  assert  that  this  harmful  power  is  the  main  prop  of  the  po- 
litical machine  and  that  the  voters  can  only  protect  the  munici- 
pality against  it  and  reduce  the  machine  to  a  skeleton  through 
municipal  ownership.  The  point  is  not  to  be  enlarged  on  here  that 
thereby  they  might  but  arect  in  the  end  a  hundredfold  more  harm- 
ful machinery ;  or  that  they  have  set  out  with  an  exaggerated  notion 
of  the  present-day  necessity  of  corporations  to  struggle  for  further 
franchise  grants,  and  also  an  inadequate  appreciation  of  certain 
elements  of  the  machine,  such  as  the  purchasable  vote,  and  of 
its  varied  sources  of  revenue,  such  as  the  numerous  Federal,  State 
and  local  offices,  elective  or  appointive,  usually  for  short  terms; 
the  host  of  public  contractors;  the  "outs"  as  well  as  the  "ins'' 
among  the  politicians ;  the  liquor  interest,  with  a  politician  dealer 
in  every  election  district;  the  police;  the  real  estate  and  other 
speculators  and  even  ordinary  business  men  who  receive  bosses'" 
notices  to  help  in  campaigns.  Rather,  the  point  necessary  first  to 
decide  is  whether  the  bosses  blackmail  the  capitalist  investors,  as 
they  do  all  others  they  can  reach,  or  whether  the  capitalists  main- 
tain franchise-getting  bosses  as  their  tools.  The  municipalizes 
who  believe  that  the  capitalists  are  the  instigators  in  the  game 
naturally  are  alive  to  find  facts  to  confirm  their  suspicions — yet 
every  one  knows  that  such  facts  are  most  difficult  to  establish. 
Political  campaigns  abound  in  rumors,  with  what  bases  all  may 
guess  and  few  know.  A  little  time  spent  by  an  investigator  in  any 
community  in  America  may  yield  him  whispers  derogatory  to  al- 
most every  man  of  the  locality  ever  in  politics.  To  sift  this  back- 
stairs and  darkroom  talk  down  to  substantial  truth  is  a  task  sel- 
dom carried  out.  The  characterless  politician  who  declares  that  he 
himself  helped  to  extort  bribery  money  from  corporations  or  han- 
dled enforced  contributions  is  a  knave  not  to  be  believed.  One 
can  build  any  theory  on  such  evidence  as  his  gossip.  Notes  taken 
of  even  the  confidential  revelations  of  good  men  with  strong  po- 
litical bias  may  lead  to  conclusions  regarding  certain  city  coun- 
cils or  certain  evil  social  tendencies  which  remain  sound  until  flatly- 
contradicted  by  men  equally  virtuous  and  equally  positive.  The 
hunt  is  every  man's.  In  America  the  hunt  is  livelier  and  the  game 
more  plentiful  than  in  Britain. 

So  numerous  and  GO  signal  are  other  differences,  political  and 
economic,  between  labor  conditions  in  Great  Britain  and  America, 
that  to  summarize  them  here  would  prove  a  formidable  task.  They 
are  outlined  in  Professor  Goodnow's  "British  Municipality,"  and 
in  the  labor  investigators'  "Suffrage,"  "Working  Class  Conditions," 
and  "Labor  and  Politics."  One  who  has  read  these  chapters  can 


66  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

never  again  freely  employ  British  municipal  developments  in  own- 
ership and  operation,  whatever  their  effects,  as  precedents  easily  to 
be  imitated  in  America.  The  British  municipalization  movement 
is  shown  as  originating  in  social  conditions — even  to  the  working- 
class  death  rate — utterly  lemoved  from  conditions  in  this  country. 
Possibilities  for  the  masses  were  not  the  same,  the  voting  power 
differs,  the  steps  to  be  taken  here  could  not  be  similar  to  those 
taken  there,  and  the  status  now  arrived  at  and  the  results  in  view 
in  Britain  differ,  to  a  degree  no  one  can  with  any  certainty  esti- 
mate, from  what  is  probable  in  America. 

Any  advantage  in  wages  or  hours  to  be  figured  out  for  the 
municipal  enterprises  investigated  in  America  over  the  private 
ones  compared  with  them  look  much  like  stale  illustrations  of  the 
soft  berths  to  be  found  in  public  employment.  To  what  extent 
the  jobs  are  political  for  the  employees,  singly  or  collectively,  or 
a  bid  for  the  labor  vote  is  constantly  a  question.  On  this  point 
my  colleague  aptly  says :  "In  the  municipal  undertakings  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  positions  are  likely  to  be  semi-political."  In 
Chicago  one  of  the  union  secretaries,  in  speaking  of  the  city  officials 
granting  the  union  scale,  avowed:  "We  tell  them,  'These  are  our 
rates' ;  they're  politicians,  and  they  know  what  to  do."  When  the 
secretary  of  the  Wheeling  gas  trustees  was  asked:  "Who  fixes  the 
wages  and  conditions  at  the  works?"  his  reply  was:  "The  men!" 
He  described  their  strikes  as  not  trade  union  but  political,  con- 
nived at  by  council  members  and  other  city  officials.  In  Syracuse 
the  two-dollar  rate  to  laborers  goes  notoriously  to  political  work- 
ers. The  disclosures  of  political  rule  at  Syracuse,  Allegheny  and 
Wheeling  would  make  it  a  mockery  of  scientific  observation  to 
ascribe  the  high  wages  for  laborers  in  those  municipal  undertak- 
ings to  the  "virtues"  of  municipal  ownership.  A  summary  of 
minimum  wage  comparisons  between  private  and  municipal  enter- 
prises must  call  for  many  modifications.  First,  it  is  to  be  remem- 
bered that  the  "minimum"  of  private  wages  is  not  the  standard 
of  private  wages  in  a  community,  but  the  lowest  point  for  the  poor- 
est paid  class  in  particular  enterprises.  A  comparison  of  the  vari- 
ous private  and  municipal  classifications  up  to  the  highest  is  not 
possible,  inasmuch  as  the  forces  of  the  large  companies  are  sub- 
divided in  finer  gradations  than  the  comparatively  small  forces  of 
the  municipalities.  Practical  men  will  derive  their  impressions  on 
this  point  from  our  wage  tables.  A  correct  view,  then,  takes  in 
these  points :  Syracuse,  the  wages  situation  politically  debauched ; 
Wheeling,  the  same;  Allegheny,  the  same,  to  an  extent  that  when 
a  difference  of  50  to  100  per  cent,  in  favor  of  municipalization 
is  soberly  computed  by  one  man  it  makes  another  laugh.  Detroit, 
private  and  municipal  plants  but  a  shade  difference.  Cleveland, 
nine  hours  municipal  as  against  ten  in  the  general  labor  market, 
wages  the  same.  Indianapolis,  no  municipal  undertakings,  the 
rate  quoted  being  for  the  public  departments,  for  which  much  of 
the  work  is  irregular ;  the  water  company  pays  nearly  all  its  labor- 
ers $1.75.  Chicago,  the  words  "minimum  wages"  here  obtain  so 


^3BKArVp 

0;-  THE 

UWIVP^QITV 

THE    LABOR    REPORT.  VV 

great  a  significance  that,  if  the  tabular  statem^isLS^^^ot  at 
hand  as  a  corrective,  a  generally  erroneous  impression  of  the  aver- 
age wages  paid  by  the  companies  investigated  might  be  derived. 
Of  252  laborers,  less  than  one-fourth  are  paid  as  low  as  $1.15 
per  day,  and  these  could  noi  pass  the  city's  civil  service  examination. 
Ten  hours  is  the  exception  with  the  companies'  employees.  The 
Chicago  firemen  in  the  fire  department  do  not  receive  union  rates. 
New  Haven,  no  municipal  undertaking;  hours,  eight,  public  de- 
partments, as  against  nine  water  works.  Richmond- Atlanta,  where 
white  as  against  black  labor  is  employed,  economic  comparison 
gives  way  to  race  comparison.  Philadelphia,  United  Gas  Improve- 
ment Company,  better  wages  and  hours  than  any  city  department, 
and  a  reduction  from  twelve-hour  shifts  under  municipal  operation 
to  eight  under  the  company  with  higher  wages.  Further  points 
to  be  kept  in  view :  With  the  companies  mentioned,  many  times 
more  hands  are  employed  than  with  the  municipalities;  good  men 
have  been  more  certain  of  retaining  their  places;  the  employees 
pay  no  political  assessments  and  are  otherwise  politically  free ;  they 
work  under  better  conditions  as  to  comfort  and  future  prospects. 

Up  to  this  stage  of  our  survey,  the  showing  of  exceptional 
benefits  to  the  wage  workers  employed  by  British  or  American 
municipalities,  where  any  whatever  have  appeared,  has  been  at- 
tended with  a  showing  of  positive  detriment  in  so  many  respects 
as  to  give  a  picture  in  striking  contrast  with  that  usually  heretofore 
exhibited  to  the  world  by  municipalizers. 

Passing  from  the  pure  wage  and  workday  phase  of  our  study, 
we  have  to  record  certain  fundamental  differences  between  public 
and  private  employment  always  observable  to  a  greater  or  less 
extent,  and  with  regard  to  which  the  labor  report  offers  testimony, 
direct  or  indirect.  These  differences  exist  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  employer,  the  employee  and  society.  Being  differences  of 
kind,  they  do  not  depend  on  the  attitude  of  passing  administrations 
or  individual  managers. 

The  relations  between  the  private  employer  and  his  employee 
are  simple.  If  the  employer  pays  the  wages  and  the  employee 
turns  out  the  work  agreed  upon,  the  parties  are  quits  as  to  busi- 
ness. If  the  two  supplement  business  with  kindly  sentiments,  the 
way  is  clear  to  promote  the  happiness  of  both,  in  word  and  deed. 
This  principle  runs  good  in  the  largest  service,  as  to  the  head  or  his 
representatives  face  to  face  with  the  force.  The  trade  union  in 
its  simple  form  does  not  aim  to  change  this  relation.  It  would 
establish  minimum  wages  and  hours  and  a  standard  of  working 
conditions,  but  leave  the  employer  free  in  hiring  and  discharging, 
under  the  trade  agreement  provisions,  and  the  employee  also  free 
aside  from  his  union  ties.  But  public  employment,  not  to  speak 
of  its  rigidity  of  forms  and  methods,  its  faults  of  delay  and  over- 
sight, gives  rise,  partly  through  politics  but  especially  through  its 
essentials  of  authority  and  restraint,  to  a  maze  of  complications. 
Some  of  these,  and  their  hurtfulness,  as  illustrated  by  facts  in  the 
labor  report,  call  for  mention. 


G8  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

Public  employees,  frequently  against  their  will,  under  duress 
from  officials  who  may  injure  them,  promote  by  election  contribu- 
tions the  fortunes  of  certain  men  and  parties,  though  at  heart  they 
may  be  opposed  to  both.  With  these  employees,  violation  of 
manly  principle  and  dishonor  to  the  State  are  secondary  to 
holding  their  places.  In  Detroit,  the  "yellow  assessment  book"  is 
passed  around  in  all  the  city  departments  except  that  of  electricity, 
in  which,  however,  only  a  few  years  ago  it  was  also  circulated.  In 
Wheeling,  the  smallest  officeholder  who  fails  to  pay  his  political 
assessment  is  speedily  dislodged.  In  Syracuse,  where  "even  the 
scrubwomen"  are  assessed  by  the  party  in  power,  it  was  said  that 
a  proceeding  not  unheard  of  was  a  subscription  by  an  official  to 
both  parties.  -  In  Allegheny,  the  one  body  of  workmen  who,  through 
their  union,  refused  to  contribute  to  campaign  funds,  were  pun- 
ished by  an  increase  of  work  at  no  higher  pay.  In  London,  it  was 
f  but  an  enforced  party  contribution  when  at  one  of  his  meetings 
the  opponents  of  Lord  Avebury  packed  the  gallery  with  municipal 
employees  "to  shout  so  as  not  a  word  could  be  heard."  The  con- 
ditions for  coercion  may  exist  even  where  it  is  not  exerted  for  the 
time  being.  In  Chicago  and  Cleveland  the  heads  of  departments, 
always  active  supporters  of  their  respective  mayor's  political  policy, 
must  when  ordered,  to  the  extent  possible,  introduce  politics  or  va- 
cate office.  In  Detroit,  a  man  whose  appointment  was  of  "a  dis- 
tinctly political  character,"  was  for  years  "the  dominating  figure" 
in  the  Public  Lighting  Commission,  and  that  may  be  the  case  again. 
Neither  the  acts  nor  the  conditions  just  described  are  characteristic 
of  private  employment.  And  they  are  clearly  not  of  a  kind  out  of 
which  develops  the  independent  citizenship  upon  which  free  insti- 
tutions are  to  rest. 

The  executive — mayor,  councilman  or  department  head — not 
only  in  appointing  but  in  promoting  or  dismissing  employees  is 
exposed  to  partisan,  personal,  social  or  other  pressure.  Of  the 
British  cities  visited,  partisanship  in  this  respect  was  least  dis- 
guised in  London,  but  in  several  others  "lines  to  councillors,"  by  ob- 
taining for  applicants  the  printed  forms,  could  insure  them  the  first 
necessary  step  toward  a  hearing.  In  Glasgow,  Sheffield  and  Leicester 
this  practice  interfered  with  the  fair  play  due  all  citizens  seeking 
work.  A  few  years  ago  foisting  a  body  of  incompetents  on  a  city?& 
payroll  was  more  common  in  Great  Britain  than  at  present;  the 
wave  of  municipal  reform  and  the  revolt  of  the  wage  workers  served 
for  a  time  to  suppress  this  custom ;  but  whether  the  betterment  is  to 
be  permanent  or  the  same  abuses  are  not  creeping  in  under  new 
forms  are  fears  now  given  common  expression.  In  machine  ruled 
American  cities  the  spoils  system  gives  to  the  party  in  power  the 
T  right  to  fill  all  the  offices;  even  in  the  better  governed  cities  a 
change  of  administration  brings  good  reason  for  uneasiness  to  all 
employees  not  fully  protected  by  law.  Municipal  employment  as 
a  consequence  can  rarely  attract  the  same  class  of  upright,  self- 
respecting,  capable  wage  workers  as  private  employment.  Here 
is  a  fact  of  grave  import  in  its  social  significance,  and  it  is  of  a 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  69 

scope  as  wide  as  the  labor  market.     It  reveals  one  valid  reason  why 
the  people  the  least  governed  are  the  best  governed. 

Municipal  employees  directly,  and  the  employed  class  in  gen- 
eral only  less  immediately,  may  undermine  the  integrity  of  the 
employing  city  official.  The  Municipal  Employees'  Association  of 
Great  Britain,  whose  members  "do  not  vote"  for  candidates  that 
decline  to  comply  with  their  demands,  is  the  prototype  of  combina- 
tions sure  to  be  formed  with  more  or  less  definiteness  wherever  the 
ballot  may  be  used  as  a  bludgeon.  Exposed  to  this  menace,  a 
municipal  councillor  or  manager  must  decide  in  all  his  acts  with 
reference  not  only  to  his  duty  but  to  his  fate  on  election  day.  Just 
as  he  must  not  defy  his  party,  local  or  national,  and  must  be 
aware  of  injuring  other  powerful  voting  elements,  he  must  not  of- 
fend this  or  that  class  of  labor.  As  my  colleague  truly  says: 
"Municipal  employees  sooner  or  later  cast  their  votes  for  candidates 
who  promise  or  who  have  secured  a  betterment  of  their  condition, 
regardless  of  its  effect  on  the  enterprise  as  a  whole" — or,  it  may 
be  added,  on  the  community  as  a  whole.  In  the  minds  of  most 
citizens  this  admission  is  sufficient  to  blast  any  scheme  that  brings 
with  it  a  solid  band  of  voters  bent  not  on  the  common  good  but 
their  own  selfish  ends.  To  gain  these  they  would  betray  any  other 
cause. 

In  America,  threatening  to  ruin  a  party  or  a  candidate  in  the 
name  of  labor  seeking  justice  has  long  been  a  move  of  both  true 
and  false  labor  leaders.  The  latter  have  played  the  game  ad  nau- 
seam in  every  community,  to  the  disgust  and  mortification  of  hon- 
est  labor  men,  yet  they  continue  to  catch  dupes.  To  dodge  the 
punitive  vote  of  some  class,  or  color,  or  creed,  or  nationality  that 
gives  strength  to  a  pack  of  arrant  demagogues,  the  officeholder 
plays  to  the  galleries,  the  public  teacher  with  ambitions  becomes 
dumb,  and  the  political  organ  suppresses  news  or  modifies  opin- 
ions. The  professional  labor  politician,  finding  himself  possessed 
of  manipulative  power,  is  as  liable  to  attempt  to  pervert  the  vote 
of  his  union  as  he  would  that  of  any  other  organization  giving  him 
support.  Even  in  unions  in  which  there  is  no  perversion  an  undue 
emphasis  is  at  times  placed  upon  the  union  ballot,  through  whose 
strength  an  unfair  profit  may  be  taken  from  a  municipalit}r.  On 
October  10  last  the  business  agent  of  the  building  trades  unions 
appeared  before  a  Chicago  council  committee  and  said  that  unless 
the  city  agreed  to  pay  double  wages  for  overtime  to  its  employees 
in  the  organizations  he  represented  they  would  refuse  to  work 
beyond  the  regular  eight  hours,  no  matter  what  the  emergency. 
The  committee  voted  to  recommend  to  the  council  the  ordinance 
providing  for  double  pay.  The  opposition  daily  press  in  conse- 
quence had  its  jeers  for  the  administration,  not  so  much  that  it 
was  fighting  the  wage  workers  as  that  it  recognized  the  politicians' 
need  of  backbone.  In  recent  years  in  Great  Britain  the  legitimate 
objects  of  the  old  line  labor  unions  have  been  frequently  cast  into 
the  shade  in  view  of  the  possible  fruits  of  election  day.  Regardless 
of  the  hurtful  effect  on  private  employment,  the  leaders  of  common 


70  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

labor  have  made  all  that  can  be  squeezed  through  platform  demands 
from  the  City  Hall  the  general  proposed  standard  of  wages.  Union- 
ists opposed  to  this  policy  are  "obstacles  to  the  welfare  of  labor.'' 
The  stronger  sentiment  for  the  hour  in  British  labor  circles  has 
been  voiced  in :  "Vote  with  us  or  you  are  not  a  union  man" ;  "Pay 
an  assessment  for  our  labor  candidates,  or  take  the  consequences." 
When  this  is  the  case  the  union  member  who  talks  and  votes  as  he 
thinks,  if  in  the  minority,  takes  risks.  And  therein  so  far  is  de- 
struction to  independent  democracy.  Such  a  situation  in  any  union 
of  Americans  would  presage  its  collapse. 

The  wage  worker  who  reads  the  labor  report  cannot  but  per- 
ceive that  municipalization  in  various  ways  carries  perils  to  the 
trade  union.  In  the  first  place,  the  field  for  the  labor  vote  manip- 
ulator enlarges  with  municipal  employment.  But  many  unionists 
refuse  to  be  moved  about  like  pawns,  and  the  lukewarm  union  mem- 
ber declining  either  to  support  or  to  fight  the  growing  strength  of 
pernicious  labor  politicians  has  one  more  reason  to  drop  out  of  tho 
union  should  occasion  arise.  Again,  individual  unionists  at  work  for 
municipalities  learn  to  look  to  politics  for  help ;  whole  unions  do  so, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  British  electrical  workers,  and  in  so  far  they  are 
out  of  the  real  union  movement.  They  are  engrafted  political  clubs, 
not  trade  unions.  They  carry  perversion  into  the  ranks  of  genuine 
unionism.  Such  unions,  as  my  colleague  says  of  the  British  Munici- 
pal Employees'  Association,  "weaken  other  unions  while  building  on 
their  support."  A  British  trade  union  secretary,  speaking  of  unions 
of  city  employees,  said:  "It  is  not  difficult  to  organize  them  to 
get  an  increase ;  the  trouble  is  to  hold  them  afterward."  Unionism 
and  office  holding,  even  of  the  pettiest  grade,  do  not  fuse.  Another 
source  of  undermining  the  union  movement  lies  in  such  municipal 
benefit  and  pension  schemes  as  have  forestalled  the  unionization 
of  both  the  Glasgow  and  Liverpool  tramway  forces.  Inevitably, 
purely  trade  union  organization  will  be  discouraged  with  the  prog- 
ress of  political  trade  union  organization.  The  national  labor 
movement  in  Great  Britain  was  perhaps  necessarily  changed  in 
character  for  a  time  through  the  Taff-Vale  decision;  a  political 
demonstration  was  unavoidable;  but  the  ensuing  political  events, 
despite  voices  of  warning,  carried  the  unions  to  a  point  difficult 
to  distinguish  from  Socialism.  And  similarly,  the  steps  beyond  a 
union  campaign  for  municipalization  in  this  country,  and  a  stage 
of  municipalization  itself,  should  this  come,  cannot  be  foreseen  by 
American  unionists.  There  might  indeed  come  a  glimpse  of  the 
wonders  of  collectivism,  but  erected  on  the  ruins  of  unionism. 

It  may  be  urged  that  unions  in  America  have  been  committed 
to  the  support  of  municipalization,  but  it  is  far  from  being  so  in 
the  sense  that  many  of  the  unions  have  been  in  Great  Britain. 
It  is  true  that  conventions  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor, 
while  almost  unanimously  voting  down  the  socialistic  element,  have 
passed  resolutions  approving  of  municipal  ownership  and  operation 
of  monopolies.  It  is  also  true  that  ten  years  ago  conventions  of 
the  Federation  indorsed  free  silver,  and  it  is  equally  true  that  the 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  71 

great  industrial  centres,  strongly  unionized,  heaped  up  large  ma- 
jorities against  the  free  silver  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  and 
that  the  issue  is  now  forgotten.  Of  like  significance  it  was  when 
the  delegates  to  an  annual  convention  of  the  International  Typo- 
graphical Union  voted,  100  to  6,  against  the  referendum  in  the 
organization;  but  the  members  reversed  the  delegates  by  6  to  1. 
The  broad  underlying  fact  in  these  reversions  of  conventions  by 
the  membership  is  that,  while  American  unionists  permit  their  con- 
vention delegates  an  indefinite  liberty  in  passing  resolutions,  espe- 
cially if  these  refer  to  the  generally  recognized  evils  of  monopoly, 
when  the  question  of  a  practical  remedy  is  voted  on  at  the  polls 
each  man  acts  on  his  own  judgment.  The  American  unions,  un- 
like those  of  Great  Britain,  do  not  support  candidates  and  public 
officeholders  out  of  their  union  treasuries.  While  central  labor 
unions  may  indorse  municipal  ownership  in  the  abstract,  our  in- 
vestigators found  no  instance  of  an  American  trade  union  taking 
an  active  part  in  the  elections  for  municipal  officers.  In  New  York 
last  year  eleven  municipal  ownership  aldermen  were  elected,  but 
not  as  trade  unionists. 

Great  Britain's  present  municipal  political  conditions  have  * 
brought  about  a  discussion  of  the  disfranchisement  of  municipal 
employees.  Sir  John  Ure  Primrose,  recent  Lord  Provost  of  Glasgow, 
who  presided  at  one  of  the  meetings  attended  by  our  committee,  said 
on  a  previous  occasion :  "We  have  reached  a  point  where  we  begin  to 
see  a  danger  ahead,  and  this  one  which,  from  what  I  know  of  your 
peculiar  political  system,  is  likely  to  be  more  threatening  to  you 
than  to  us.  This  arises  out  of  the  building  up  of  a  great  army  of 
municipal  employees."  Mr.  E.  0.  Smith,  town  clerk  of  Birming- 
ham since  1881,  testified  before  a  Parliamentary  committee:  "I 
should  like  to  see  all  corporate  employees  disfranchised."  Sir 
Thomas  Hughes,  alderman  since  1878,  except  during  his  two  terms 
as  mayor,  said  to  the  same  committee :  "I  have  known  an  instance 
where  combination  was  the  occasion  of  a  very  good  man  being 
thrown  out  of  his  position  as  a  councillor  simply  because  they 
thought  he  did  not  favor"  (the  municipal  employees).  "I  should 
gladly  welcome"  (disfranchisement).  Manager  Dalrymple  of  the- 
Giasgow  tramways,  through  conscientious  scruples,  does  not  vote. 
He  favors  disfranchising  public  servants,  and  does  not  permit  tram- 
way employees  to  take  part  in  municipal  politics  beyond  voting. 
Lord  Stanley,  when  postmaster  general,  tried  to  have  Parliament 
pass  a  bill  disfranchising  postmen.  He  failed  of  re-election,  and 
the  organized  postmen  speak  of  having  finished  his  career,  unaware 
that  in  this  boast  they  apprize  the  lay  citizen  of  the  postmen's 
adhesion  to  a  bureaucracy  apart  from  the  community,  with  inter- 
ests of  its  own.  The  British  way  out  of  the  dilemma  of  an  army 
of  public  servants  become  a  public  menace  may  be  disfranchise- 
ment; a  like  dilemma,  and  the  menace  of  a  similar  fate  to  free 
wage  workers,  are  yet  avoidable  in  America. 

One  showing  of   our  labor   investigations   is   a  tendencv  of 
municipal  employees  in  either  country  to  refuse  to  enter  unions 


72  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

when  nothing  is  to  be  gained  at  once  for  themselves,  or  having 
organized  and  taken  a  profit  to  quit  singly  or  in  a  body.  This 
comes  from  the  fact  thatVhile  the  union  idea  is  to  master  the  labor 
market  of  an  occupation  and  then  by  strike  or  negotiation  to  mark 
up  labor  prices,  a  different  idea  in  time  predominantly  animates 
the  municipal  employee.  The  minds  of  his  employers,  the  higher 
office-holders,  being  affected  by  the  variety  of  considerations  above 
noted  that  do  not  enter  the  mind  of  a  private  employer,  it  is  for 
the  municipal  employee  to  study  those  considerations  and  when 
they  involve  political  destinies  to  turn  them  to  his  own  account. 
The  strike,  with  the  necessary  maintenance  of  trade  union  machin- 
ery, is  not  so  facile  and  inexpensive  as  political  influence  and 
pressure,  with  no  regular  weekly  or  monthly  dues  to  support  the 
combination  exerting  them.  And  why  when  the  political  method 
is  operative  and  promising  should  the  public  employee  also  help 
carry  the  union?  The  gas  workers  of  Wheeling  "immediately 
dropped  out  of  the  union"  on  receiving  even  less  advantages  than 
those  the  local  Trade  Assembly  was  struggling  to  obtain  for  them. 
In  this  they  unknowingly  imitated  the  gas  workers  of  the  municipal 
plant  at  Rotherham,  adjoining  Sheffield,  who  disbanded  on  obtain- 
ing through  the  laborers'  national  union  officials  an  advance  to  an 
equal  footing  with  the  Sheffield  Gas  Company's  men.  On  this  action 
a  Sheffield  labor  councillor  commented:  "They  can  now  neither 
help  themselves  nor  any  one  else."  The  Leicester  municipal  gas 
workers,  when  pleaded  with  by  Secretary  Will  Thome  to  pay  dues 
to  his  union,  thus  to  help  their  brothers  elsewhere,  coldly  held  aloof, 
gave  not  a  penny,  and  voted  not  to  organize.  Municipal  employee- 
are  surely  in  the  union  movement  when  they  want  help,  but  they 
may  be  out  of  it  when  called  on  for  help.  The  promoters  of  a  ne\v 
union  cannot  discriminate  among  the  qualified  applicants  for  mem- 
bership nor  shape  too  definitely  the  union's  own  policies.  It  is  not 
the  organizer's  fault  if  employing  municipal  officials  are  more  easily 
persuaded  to  lend  a  hand  than  private  employers,  or  if  municipal 
employees  on  occasions  come  into  the  union  on  a  little  judicious 
persuasion  with  more  alacrity  than  hands  who  have  got  along  with 
their  employers  well  for  years.  And  if  a  stage  is  early  reached  at 
which  the  union's  scale  and  requirements,  as  enforced  upon  the 
municipality,  are  so  far  above  the  market  rates  for  some  grades  of 
skill,  and  so  crude  and  arbitrary  as  not  to  be  adaptable  to  the  vari- 
ous special  developments  of  the  industry,  there  will  be  found  out- 
side the  organization  many  men  in  private  employment  who  by 
proper  management  ought  to  be  within.  This  is  by  some  electrical 
workers  in  Chicago  described  as  the  union  situation  there.  It 
would  perhaps  be  to  the  political  interest  of  the  Chicago  Edison 
Company  to  have  a  unionized  force,  but  the  union's  scale  is  not 
adapted  to  the  company's  forty-odd  subdivisions  of  employees.  To 
some  extent  the  same  line  of  reasoning  is  applicable  to  other  oc- 
cupations. If  the  thought  is  correct,  the  general  trade  union  move- 
ment suffers  from  whatever  is  spurious  in  the  municipal  employees' 
unions.  The  selfishness  of  the  municipal  employees  in  driving  the 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  73 

best  bargain  for  themselves,  regardless  of  the  possibilities  of  a 
general  organization  with  modified  demands,  is  a  fatal  flaw  in 
the  new  unionism.  To  point  to  a  so-called  union  force  working 
for  a  municipality  and  a  non-union  force  in  the  same  occupation 
working  for  private  employers  is  not  a  conclusive  argument  for 
municipalization  to  the  experienced  union  man.  Every  non-union 
private  force  is  in  possible  union  territory,  and  once  gained  the 
force  will  most  likely  be  permanently  and  actually  union.  And  for 
the  promotion  of  a  wholesome,  honest  and  solid  unionism  a  certain 
opposition  by  private  employers  is  necessary.  It  teaches  the  em- 
ployer obligation,  the  non-unionist  the  benefits  of  organization  in 
any  form,  and  the  unionist  the  just  and  practicable  limitations  of 
his  claims.  With  an  open  opposition  from  private  emplo}rers,  such 
as  exists  to-day  in  the  mining  industry  governed  by  the  trade 
agreement,  the  unionists  know  where  they  are.  With  the  half- 
union  and  half-political  patchwork  compromise  existing  between 
union  business  agents  and  municipal  officials,  the  union  spokesmen 
-are  in  a  false  position,  the  city  officials  are  usually  under  suspi- 
cion as  time-servers,  the  unions  immediately  concerned  are  not  in 
every  respect  genuine,  and  the  union  movement  is  handicapped. 

To  some  trade  union  leaders  the  policy  of  working  up  wages 
by  first  establishing  a  high  municipal  wage  rate  and  then  promot- 
ing strikes  in  private  employment  for  the  same  standard  is  ad- 
vanced as  one  easily  worked.  It  has  its  limitations,  and  its  steps 
in  practice  may  be  forestalled.  Very  few  classes  of  wage  workers 
&re  employed  by  the  city  government.  It  is  not  worth  while  for 
fifty  occupations  to  take  up  the  political  method  for  the  possible 
benefit  of  perhaps  five.  And  the  masses  of  the  men  concerned  in 
private  employ  will  not  always  permit  themselves  to  be  used,  as 
the  policy  suggests,  to  run  up  high  wages  for  a  small  minority 
while  awaiting  a  problematical  future  move  on  their  own  behalf. 
The  contracts  with  individual  workmen  made  by  British  munici- 
palities and  companies  defeat  the  policy  wholly  in  so  far  as  gas 
and  water  employees  are  concerned. 

"Open  shop"  is  the  inevitable  character  of  municipal,  as  all 
other  government,  employment.  Appointments  must  be  possible 
to  all  citizens.  Union  rules  and  orders  must  give  way  in  the  shop 
to  the  law  and  official  decisions.  The  Miller  case  of  the  government 
printing  office  at  Washington  set  at  rest  reasonable  doubt  on  these 
points,  one  result  recently  being  the  refusal  of  seventy  members 
of  the  typographical  union  in  that  office  to  pay  the  union  eight-hour 
assessment.  In  the  municipal  enterprises  investigated  at  Richmond, 
South  Norwalk,  Syracuse,  Allegheny,  Wheeling,  Detroit,  Cleve- 
land and  Chicago  the  laborers  are  not  organized,  while  in  the 
mechanical  trades  both  union  and  non-union  men  without  discrim- 
ination hold  positions.  Through  the  activity  of  business  agents 
union  men  may  at  some  municipal  plants  obtain  a  larger  proportion 
of  situations  than  non-union,  but  rarely  can  the  agent  compel  the 
municipal  employee,  if  firmly  unwilling,  to  pay  his  union  dues.  By 
the  agitation  of  central  labor" unions,  groups  of  municipal  employees 


74  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

may  get  better  terms  from  a  city  and  then  be  free  to  remain  apart 
from  the  labor  movement.  In  Great  Britain,  when  the  mechanics 
of  a  city  engage  in  a  strike  against  a  lowering  of  wages,  the  union 
municipal  employees  remain  at  work,  but  if  the  strike  is  lost  their 
wages  are  reduced  with  those  of  the  strikers.  In  the  little  South 
Norwalk,  Connecticut,  electrical  works  the  non-union  hands  have 
been  exempted  from  membership  in  the  Bridgeport  union,  a  course 
possibly  helpful  to  municipal  ownership  but  if  pursued  consistently 
not  to  trade  unionism.  These  facts,  illustrating  endless  artificial 
obstacles  to  unionism  in  public  employ,  hardly  describe  a  possible 
prospect  under  municipalization  for  building  up  in  America  a 
united  body  of  wage  workers  animated  with  one  set  of  hopes, 
rules  and  aims.  In  fact,  the  enemies  of  trade  unionism  might  di- 
vide and  conquer  it  through  municipal  ownership,  were  the  cost 
not  socially  prohibitive. 

Municipalities  are  impersonal  employers.  They  operate 
through  mechanisms.  Petitions  from  individual  employees,  for 
example,  may  meet  refusal  by  a  reference  of  the  signers  to  the 
regulations;  those  from  a  body,  if  recognized  at  all,  must  go  by 
way  of  red  tape  finally  to  the  power  making  appropriations.  The 
higher  municipal  officials  can  arrange  for  such  matters  as  the  com- 
fort and  convenience  of  employees  only  as  themselves  invested  with 
funds  and  authority,  which  is  rarely  the  case,  or  they  may  affect 
to  sympathize  with  the  members  of  a  force  while  really  plotting 
against  their  interests.  But  the  private  employer  or  his  represent- 
ative can  be  reached  directly  by  the  employed  and  a  decision  ar- 
rived at  quickly.  In  this  case  the  two  parties  see  each  other  in 
the  open.  In  kindness  or  unkindness  man  faces  man.  Results  of 
these  two  forms  of  relationship  between  the  employer  and  the 
employed,  municipal  and  company,  as  recorded  in  the  labor  report, 
and  indeed  as  observed  by  our  committeemen  generally,  do  not 
confirm  the  assertions,  so  assiduously  given  circulation  by  munici- 
palizers,  that  municipalization  has  tended  to  abolish  workplace 
hardships  and  introduce  new  comforts  in  the  workingman's  life. 
Usually  attempts  to  "live  up  to  the  brag"  in  Great  Britain  have 
been  flat -failures.  At  the  main  Glasgow  works,  of  the  day  shift 
of  500  men,  but  a  dozen  in  the  course  of  the  week  make  use  of  the 
shower  baths,  only  a  corporal's  guard  go  to  the  mess  room,  few 
enter  the  reading  hall — the  structure  for  these  purposes,  which 
stands  too  far  away  from  the  works  proper  to  permit  of  immediate 
use,  not  being  provided  with  necessary  conveniences — toweling, 
means  for  drying  clothes,  methods  for  the  care  of  library  matter. 
At  Leicester,  but  72  of  the  600  employees  care  enough  for  the  club 
and  recreation  hall  to  pay  2d.  a  week  to  enjoy  its  privileges.  The 
two  great  gas  stations  of  Birmingham — Saltley  and  Nechells — 
have  heretofore  lacked  the  common  bathing  facilities  always  looked 
for  at  gas  works.  As  a  rule,  however,  British  workmen  have  not 
-been  taught  to  expect  the  same  consideration  as  American.  The  ap- 
pearance of  new  conveniences  in  recent  years  at  some  of  the  Brit- 
ish municipal  works  has  furnished  to  enthusiastic  Fabian  writers 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  75 

the  grounds  for  many  praises  and  ardent  hopes  for  the  coming 
millennial  era  through  their  social  revolution,  but  the  innovations 
were  merely  what  has  been  customary  in  many  American  establish- 
ments. The  welfare  works  of  Great  Britain's  municipal  undertak- 
ings, while  a  shade  better  than  the  private,  seem  to  have  not  been 
worth  any  especial  notice  from  our  own  investigators.  When  a 
good  word  is  said  for  Liverpool's  coffee  and  cake  and  billiard 
rooms  at  one  of  the  car  depots,  and  the  tidiness  of  two  or  three 
retiring  places  at  other  plants,  the  subject  is  quite  exhausted.  In 
this  country  the  company  plants  visited  have  usually  far  better 
methods  both  for  assuaging  hardship  and  encouraging  men  in  self- 
respect  and  worthy  ambition  than  the  municipal.  In  Chicago,  the 
Edison  Company's  close  personal  relationship  with  its  employees 
stands  in  sharp  contrast  with  that  municipality's  neglect  of  even 
decent  accommodations  for  its  electrical  workers.  Mean  appoint- 
ments and  dirt  are  characteristic  of  Chicago's  municipal  electric 
stations.  The  Edison  Company's  system  of  instruction  and  club- 
room  features  has  no  counterpart  in  the  city's  electrical  depart- 
ment, while  the  company's  gradation  of  employees  and  promotion 
on  merit  form  a  practical  civil  service  that  needs  no  commission 
with  theories  and  is  operative  every  day  in  the  year. 

Something  is  revealed  in  the  difference  in  appearance  of  the 
men  seen  about  public  and  private  offices  and  workrooms.  "This 
office,"  said  the  chief  gas  inspector  in  the  Richmond  City  Hail, 
"used  to  be  political  headquarters.  The  fellows  stood  about,  or 
sat  on  the  desks  and  tables,  and  had  the  telephone  going  all  the 
time.  I  put  up  'walk  oack'  notices,  said  I  meant  everybody,  and 
succeeded  in  a  partial  reformation."  This  picture  is  familiar  to 
every  American  citizen  who  has  had  business  at  the  ciiy  hall  or 
court-house.  The  scramblers  for  petty  offices  or  short-term  jobs 
between  election  times  hang  about  to  discuss  the  moves  on  the 
political  chessboards.  Their  manners  are  not  the  manners  of  men 
in  private  business  places.  The  public  office  or  workroom  itself 
is  usually  wanting  in  the  cleanliness,  furniture  and  facilities  ob- 
servable in  the  private.  A  key  here  in  either  case  to  causes  that 
operate  upon  efficiency  at  every  stage. 

Not  one  of  the  British  or  American  municipal  plants  of  any 
kind  presented  a  systematized  combination  of  features  in  the  form 
of  benefits,  education,  grading,  welfare  work,  care  for  the  aged, 
etc.,  that  gave  the  slightest  foundation  for  the  claim  of  municipal- 
ization  advocates  that  with  public  ownership  arise  striking  evi- 
dences of  closer  sympathetic  relations  between  employer  and  em- 
ployed. On  the  contrary,  in  reciting  the  undeniable  facts  as  to  the 
watchfulness  of  American  companies  over  the  health,  comfort, 
technical  education  and  advancement  in  business  of  their  employees, 
one's  words  may  be  construed  as  praise  where  the  intent  is  no  more 
than  exact  report.  The  reader  is  invited  to  consult  our  labor 
statements  on  these  points  and  form  his  own  judgment.  The  Chi- 
cago Edison  Company  and  the  Philadelphia  United  Gas  Improve- 
ment Company,  each  far  more  extensive  than  the  largest  municipal 


76  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

gas  or  electric  works  visited  abroad,  exhibit  both  ripened  business 
judgment  and  strong  sentiments  of  fellowship  in  numerous  forms 
of  care  for  their  employees,  whether  at  work  or  at  play.  It  is 
but  one's  plain  duty  to  call  attention  also  to  the  exemplary  over- 
sight of  the  Indianapolis  Water  Company  in  regard  to  the  material 
conditions  of  its  force,  10  the  New  Haven  Company's  record  for 
retaining  its  employees,  and  to  the  Atlanta  Company's  interesting 
methods  of  rewards  beyond  wages.  Nor,  since  our  task  is  a  com- 
parison of  methods,  is  it  invidious  to  direct  attention  to  the  table 
of  terms  of  service  in  the  Glasgow  municipal  tramways,  giving 
color  as  it  does  to  the  assertions  of  a  Glasgow  correspondent  of 
the  London  "Clarion"  (Socialist),  who  wrote,  January  19,  1906, 
that :  "Motor  men  and  conductors  to  be  employed  on  the  tramways 
must  produce  a  five  years'  reference,  but  on  leaving,  unless  going 
abroad,  no  character  is  given ;  that  the  conductors  have  to  pay 
the  full  face  value  for  lost  tickets;  that  the  men  are  supposed  to 
report  each  other  for  neglect  of  duty;  that  men  have  been  sus- 
pended for  not  wearing  the  regulation  uniform,  for  punching  a 
ticket  in  the  wrong  place,  and  for  numberless  trifles  which  no  pri- 
vate employer  would  think  of  even  checking  a  man  for."  This 
correspondent  also  called  attention  to  the  large  number  who  leave 
every  year,  owing  to  the  many  petty  grievances  and  irregularity 
of  the^ hours  with  which  they  have  to  put  up.  Our  investigators' 
table  shows  that  1,085  of  the  2,433  have  less  than  three  years' 
standing  as  employees. 

The  Liverpool  municipal  tramways  service  employs  no  man 
under  the  age  of  thirty  years.  Glasgow  takes  on  no  elderly  men 
as  lamplighters,  watchmen,  etc.  Few,  if  any,  of  the  British  under- 
takings investigated  instruct  beginners  at  laboring  work.  Such 
facts  throw  on  the  municipal  "minimum  wage"  a  light  different 
from  that  in  which  it  stands  when  the  shillings  that  may  be  gamed 
under  it  have  isolated  mention.  The  British  municipality  selects 
a  workman  after  proof  of  his  character  and  mental  and  physical 
fitness,  it  hires  no  aging  man,  usually  obliges  the  young  learner  to 
obtain  his  knowledge  and  certificate  from  a  private  employer, 
strictly  holds  the  employee  up  to  discipline,  and  discharges  him 
by  rule  and  regulation.  As  little  compunction  is  to  be  expected 
as  when  the  city  of  Glasgow  seizes  the  last  stick  of  furniture  of  the 
poor  man  to  satisfy  a  claim  for  gas,  water  or  electricity.  Herein 
are  many  indications  that  municipal  wage  rates,  including  pension 
schemes,  are  to  a  considerable  extent  but  the  effect  of  trade  union 
and  labor  vote  pressure  and  not  of  the  brotherly  feeling  of  the 
higher  office  holders.  On  the  whole,  a  municipality,  British  or 
American,  pays  the  wage  the  law  prescribes  and  there  it  stops. 
Numerous  obstacles  inherent  in  public  employment  stand  in  the 
way  of  having  it  do  more. 

The  American  employee  properly  infused  with  our  national 
spirit  seeks  a  career  in  which  he,  alike  with  his  fellows,  may  hope 
to  reap  due  rewards  and  suffer  just  penalties,  while  retaining  in 
every  respect  his  liberties  as  a  freeman.  But  the  obstacles  to  thia 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  77 

ideal  condition  are  endless  in  public  employ.  As  we  have  seen, 
it  usually  offers  to  the  aspirant  the  vicious  spoils  system,  or  in  a 
few  cases  a  schoolboy  civil  service  examination,  partly  absurd  and 
on  occasion  humiliating,  with  the  possibility,  as  a  climax  of  injury, 
of  disfranchisement.  The  directing  administrators  of  a  municipality 
— mayor,  councilmen,  department  heads — officially,  by  nature  or 
their  terms  of  service,  can  promise  the  employee  but  short  memories, 
vacillating  judgments  and  varying  policies.  These  deficiencies  can- 
not engender  the  confidence  in  his  future  that  puts  vim  into  a  man's 
work.  Moreover,  in  official  life  but  little  play  is  offered  for  the 
heart.  The  usual  public  expression  of  indebtedness  beyond  wages 
— pensions — is  a  standing  testimony  to  enormous  abuse.  In  thex 
public  service,  opportunity  to  advance  even  when  legally  prear- 
ranged through  examinations  systematized  and  robbed  of  attraction 
to  versatile  mentality  and  high  character,  is  exposed  to  influence 
and  political  plotting.  A  public  employee  without  backing  may 
never  be  given  occasion  to  prove  his  peculiar  abilities;  even  bare 
legal  recognition  of  his  proper  claims  may  tardily  be  conceded. 
The  average  public  employee  displays  a  sufficiently  high  order  of 
merit  to  hold  his  place  if  he  merely  follows  the  code  of  rules  me- 
chanically. To  a  certain  limit  he  may  be  slovenly,  indolent,  ill- 
natured,  unhelpful,  selfish,  unobliging  to  the  public,  and  yet  incur 
no  punishment.  Private  employment  in  general  does  not  develop 
this  character;  it  rewards  ideas,  alertness,  civility,  cleanliness, 
energy.  A  force  of  public  employees  with  rights  under  the  regula- 
tions invariably  become  a  band  of  lay  lawyers  who  know  the  loop- 
holes of  the  law  favorable  to  themselves.  "Old  soldiers,"  they  are 
capable  of  violating  the  spirit  while  paying  it  outward  deference. 
Every  public  employee  daily  faces  the  riddle  as  to  where  his  obli- 
gation as  the  government's  man  ends  and  his  freedom  as  a  citizen 
begins;  post  office  employees  may  not  combine  and  agitate  while 
off  duty  with  a  view  to  an  increase  in  their  salaries.  Not  to  give 
the  proposition  to  disfranchise  any  weight,  the  prohibition  of  per- 
nicious political  activity  is  at  once  a  notice  to  public  employees 
that  they  stand  in  a  category  apart  from  citizens  in  general,  a  rec- 
ognition by  the  community  that  they  live  too  near  power  to  be 
trusted,  and  a  warning  that  the  menace  that  they  constitute  ought 
not  to  be  increased.  A  desirable  humanitarianism  in  public  ser- 
vice, such  as  a  maximum  annual  sick  leave,  may  through  perversion 
become  simply  an  emolument  of  office ;  a  necessary  exercise  of  pref- 
erence by  superiors,  a  means  of  favoritism ;  a  system  of  promotions 
on  examination,  a  device  to  reward  spasmodic  cramming  and  de- 
feat sterling  every-day  capability.  The  disparities  of  pay  and  treat- 
ment and  length  of  workday  so  frequently  observed  among  various 
classes  of  public  employees  illustrate  the  difficulties  of  adjusting 
details  through  statutes.  To  organized  labor  the  problem  pre- 
sented by  municipal  employment  through  possible  falling  away  of 
members,  misrepresentation  by  vote  hucksters,  and  the  gradual 
transition  from  unionism  to  politics,  is  rendered  the  more  compli- 
cated by  the  fact  that  no  private  blacklist  ever  instituted  has  been 


78  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

so  sweeping  as  that  operative  through  civil  service  or  similar  inqui- 
sition against  a  discharged  public  employee.  Once  out  for  cause, 
to  re-enter  the  public  service  is  a  heart-breaking  task. 

If  these  observations  are  true  they  are  proofs  that  private 
employment  is  free  from  manifold  drawbacks  that  in  the  public 
service  lower  efficiency,  form  automatons,  and  discourage  a  proper 
and  manly  self-assertion.  To  a  large  extent  the  various  objec- 
tions noted  in  this  review  are  stated  or  suggested  in  our  labor  re- 
port; and  American  wage  workers  already  give  them  wide  recog- 
nition in  practice.  Among  the  more  independent  there  is  a  large 
class  who  consider  that  precisely  as  the  field  of  public  employment 
is  enlarged — with  its  age  limits,  its  uncertainties,  its  unsettled  and 
always  doubtful  civil  service,  its  asylums  for  barnacles,  its  artificial 
relationships,  its  unrequited  exactions,  its  inducements  to  hypoc- 
risy and  filchings — the  field  in  which  they  may  find  honest  work, 
or  any  work,  is  diminished.  No  man  can  entertain  that  view  of 
the  extension  of  private  employment,  in  its  variety.  There,  the 
more  work  the  more  chance  for  all. 

But  when  all  is  said  on  the  vexed  question  of  public  versus 
private  employment,  only  a  single  phase  of  the  workingman's  re- 
lation to  municipalizing  has  been  seen.  Not  by  an  enormous  per- 
centage is  the  working  class  citizenship  represented  by  municipal 
employees,  and  not  by  a  considerable  percentage  even  by  the  trade 
unionists.  A  majority  of  the  latter  might  for  a  time  decide  to 
support  municipal  ownership  and  operation  and  yet  come  far  from 
truly  representing  the  whole  of  the  workers.  This  can  only  be  done 
by  the  total  masses  of  society  who  through  work  of  all  grades  are 
in  the  broader  sense  producers.  These  have  at  stake  infinitely  the 
greatest  interests — political,  economic,  social.  Earely  is  this  truth 
accorded  its  full  weight.  The  eye-glass  of  political  reformers — 
and  men  of  all  parties  so  consider  themselves — is  commonly  di- 
rected alternately  on  the  public  employee  to  ascertain  if  he  ha^ 
been  made  better  off  by  municipal  experiments  on  trial,  and  on 
the  organized  mass  of  wage  workers  whose  votes  on  an  issue  may 
be  decisive.  While  all  men  feel  that  the  general  good  is  what  is 
meant  to  be  subserved,  heated  argument  over  lesser  phases  is  thus 
the  partisan  habit.  When  one  reflects  on  the  comprehensive  sig- 
nificance of  the  term  "the  wage  earner"  and  is  told  that  "the  ten- 
dency of  municipal  ownership  is  to  benefit  the  wage  earner  more 
in  the  United  States  than  in  Great  Britain"  he  is  struck  both  with 
the  absurdity  of  attributing  stiff  municipal  wages  to  altruistic 
origins  and  with  the  pitiful  inadequacy  of  the  descriptive  term 
employed,  unless  there  lurks  in  it  the  promise  of  a  paradise  when 
the  army  of  public  employees  shall  be  increased  without  limit. 

Another  highly  important  point  is  often  lost  to  view.  Even 
if  the  reformer  in  office  is  genuine,  even  if  he  has  a  scheme  that 
promises  well  for  the  working  masses,  there  arises  the  question 
of  the  duration  of  his  official  powers  and  those  of  his  successors  with 
similar  aims,  together  vvith  the  persistence  of  the  public  in  assid- 
uous attention  to  its  own  self-protection.  What  may  be  done  during 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  79 

a  voters'  upheaval  is  neither  a  measure  of  what  is  possible  to  public 
administration  as  the  decades  go  by  nor  a  guarantee  that  the  spirit 
of  reform  is  to  have  no  rest  until  the  last  serious  grievance  is  ended. 
The  steady  strain  on  voters,  with  the  distraction  of  new  issues,  is 
heavy.  The  public-spirited  councilmen  who  planned  Kichmond's 
gas  enterprise  in  1851  provided  in  the  City  Code  that  on  February 
1  of  each  year  the  municipal  auditor  should  ascertain  the  cost  of 
gas  for  the"  previous  twelve  months  and  fix  its  price  accordingly  for 
the  ensuing  twelve.  Long  ago  forgotten  by  the  public,  this  article 
is  probably  unknown  at  the  present  time  to  nearly  all  the  council 
members.  Directly  in  violation  of  it,  the  gas  works  revenues  are 
regularly  used  to  reduce  the  local  taxes;  that  is,  those  citizens  who 
burn  gas  pay  their  own  taxes  and  a  part  of  what  are  justly  due 
from  their  neighbors.  The  injustice  is  yet  more  flagrant  in  the 
case  of  the  black  taxpayers  who  are  gas  consumers,  for  their  pay- 
ments help  in  giving  the  exclusively  white  gas  employees  wages 
far  above  the  market  rate  for  negroes  or  even  for  white  men. 
Thrice  removed  from  privilege,  the  black  gas  consumers  live  on 
under  this  outrage,  municipal  reform  asleep.  Their  burden  is  not 
on  the  scale  it  might  be  were  Eichmond  a  Glasgow  in  municipal- 
ization,  but  it  has  the  sanction  of  time,  the  community's  conscience 
in  this  respect  fossilized.  Birmingham,  the  birthplace  of  English 
municipalization,  has  exhibited  in  its  gas  works  from  the  start  a 
failure  to  recognize  the  principle  that  to  take  money  from  the  gas 
consumers  in  order  to  reduce  the  rates  is  an  arbitrary  double  taxa- 
tion. Birmingham's  minimum  wage,  the  lowest  of  the  larger  Eng- 
lish cities,  comes  down  near  sweatshop  levels,  and  its  provisions 
for  the  comfort  of  its  gas  workers  are  well-nigh  non-existent.  A 
gang  of  its  coke-stackers,  cleaning  up  in  the  foul  works  wash  room 
after  their  day's  work,  voiced  this  plaint  to  several  members  of  our 
committee:  "This  is  the  hardest  work  in  Birmingham,  and  the 
poorest  paid."  Commenting  on  the  $250,000  annually  turned 
into  the  municipal  treasury  by  the  Birmingham  works,  the  Gas 
Workers'  Trade  Union  secretary  said:  "The  poorest  class  of  work- 
people pay  an  extraordinary  price  for  gas — 3s.  2d  (76  cents)  — 
and  what  the  poor  burn  is  the  backbone  of  the  industry.  Large 
consumers  pay  Is.  7d.  (38  cents),  medium,  2s.  6d.  (60  cents.)" 
Contrast  these  various  points  with  the  same  points  as  related  to 
Sheffield's  gas  company.  This  company  sells  a  better  quality  cf 

fas  than  Birmingham  at  Is.  Id.  (26  cents)  to  Is.  6d.  (36  cents). 
ts  employees  have  wages  as  high  as  those  of  Sheffield's  municipal 
employees  or  higher.  Their  welfare  as  workmen  is  well  cared  for. 
The  city,  although  it  owns  no  stock  in  the  company,  has  its  inter- 
ests guarded  by  appointing  three  councilmen  members  of  the  board 
of  directors.  Birmingham  publishes  in  its  reports  a  table  showing 
the  amount  of  profits  paid  annually  to  the  city  by  its  gas  consum- 
ers, amounting  in  ten  years  to  $2,500,000;  the  Sheffield  Company 
could  well  print  a  table  showing,  on  the  basis  of  the  difference  be- 
tween the  price  of  its  gas  and  Birmingham's,  how  it  has  saved  twice 
that  sum  to  Sheffield's  gas  consumers,  meantime  taking  nothing 


80  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

from  the  municipality  and  maintaining  an  attitude  of  impartial 
justice  toward  all  citizens,  gas  consumers  or  otherwise.  Sheffield  and 
Birmingham  thus  compared  afford  an  insight  into  certain  pecul- 
iar and  significant  features  of  municipal  and  private  ownership, 
not  the  least  of  which  are  the  fitfulness  of  municipalization  reform 
and  the  permanency  in  the  reforms  established  by  just  charter 
provisions  for  a  company,  to  the  immeasurable  benefit  of  the  entire 
wage  working  class. 

The  summing-up  questions  in  our  labor  inquiry  must  include, 
besides  those  relating  strictly  to  the  wages  and  hours  and  welfare 
of  the  hands :  Which,  public  or  private  employment,  assists  in  the 
greater  honesty  and  efficiency  of  a  working  force,  in  the  higher 
development  of  both  specialized  knowledge  and  the  spirit  of  man- 
hood among  employees?  Which  promotes  among  the  masses  the 
more  general  use  of  the  commodities  that  are  produced?  Which, 
hence,  best  aids  commerce  and  transportation?  Which,  while  help- 
ing to  insure  the  greatest  possible  volume  of  consumption,  unfail- 
ingly stimulates  initiative  and  invention  and  provides  new  oppor- 
tunities for  the  workers  through  the  advancement  of  the  whole 
people?  Civic  adjustments  with  a  view  to  benefiting  labor  must 
have  regard  to  clearing  the  political  and  economic  field  of  unnec- 
essary complications,  to  maintaining  the  conditions  most  favorable 
to  technical  and  general  progress,  and  to  achieving  results  in  the 
highest,  broadest  and  remotest  degree  conducive  to  the  happiness 
of  every  rank  of  labor.  The  adjustments,  for  example,  that  give  us 
the  most  widespread  use  of  the  best  and  cheapest  gas  and  electricity, 
the  lowest  fares  and  the  speediest  transportation  on  the  greatest 
of  electric  lines,  are  those  most  desirable  to  the  entire  population. 
If  such  ends  are  the  better  attained  in  free  industry,  necessarily 
involving  private  employment,  to  continue  extending  its  province 
becomes  one  of  the  higher  obligations  of  society. 

On  examining  municipalization  as  exhibited  in  the  labor  re- 
ports, it  is  seen  to  be  a  project  to  restrict  men  in  their  activities 
by  methods  foreign  to  the  American  genius,  while  in  practice  it  has 
failed  to  make  out  the  case  of  its  advocates  as  in  the  least  measure 
a  step  forward  in  promoting  the  best  interests  of  the  employees 
of  the  enterprises  investigated,  or  of  the  occupations  most  closely 
interwoven  with  them,  or  of  the  nation's  breadwinning  masses. 

WORKING    CLASS    CONDITIONS. 

Many  of  the  striking  differences  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  in  labor  and  social  conditions  are  illustrated 
in  the  industries  investigated.  In  the  United  States  there  is  an 
absence  of  many  factors  which,  appearing  in  the  inquiry  in  Great 
Britain,  possess  a  significance  as  to  the  general  political  and 
economic  state  of  the  kingdom,  and  consequently  as  to  tendencies 
there  in  attempts  at  social  changes. 

There  is  no  Municipal  Employees'  Association  in  the  United 
States.  The  essential  object  of  that  organization — pressure  on 
city  officials  by  means  of  the  ballot  to  control  wages  and  hours — 


vr    (  HE 

UNIVERSITY  ] 
J 

THE    LABOR    REPORT.  81 

is  usually  attained  here  through  the  composition  and  methods  of 
our  party  machines.  It  is  through  them  that  our  officeholder^, 
big  and  little,  and  outside  organizations,  labor  and  otherwise 
operate. 

In  this  country  a  community  may  have  the  three  interests  of 
local,  State,  and  national  politics  united  in  one  party  executive  com- 
mittee; in  Great  Britain  representative  men  of  all  the  cities  visited 
denied  that  any  machine  whatever  in  the  American  sense  existed 
among  them.  In  some  of  these  cities  any  connection  between  local 
and  national  politics  was  also  disavowed,  and  even  where  Council- 
lors were  classed  as  Liberals  and  Conservatives  at  election  it  was 
asserted  that  in  Council  Conservatives  at  times  spoke  and  acted  as 
Radicals,  while  Liberals  might  be  as  reactionary  as  the  Whigs. 

In  the  United  States,  there  are  nowhere  such  legal  restriction* 
of  citizenship  as  to  cut  away  the  laboring  class  vote  by  25  per  cent, 
or  at  times  more,  even  as  high  as  40,  as  in  London  and  Liverpool. 
Xor  does  there  exist  in  this  country  such  a  relationship  between 
municipality  as  employer  and  its  wage-workers  as  to  bring  up  for 
discussion  the  disenfranchisement  of  city  employees.  There  are  no 
multiple  voting  here  on  property,  no  representation  by  citizens  liv- 
ing in  territory  lying  outside  the  constituency  represented,  no- 
selection  of  men  of  other  classes  as  the  official  spokesman  of  the 
labor  element.  The  American  workmen  have  no  conception  of  the 
British  system  of  caste.  In  America  there  has  been  no  recent  up- 
heaval of  the  working  classes  resulting  in  the  election  of  labor 
representation  in  Congress  and  the  City  Councils  composed  of 
leaders  with  more  or  less  revolutionary  programmes. 

The  three  foregoing  paragraphs  indicate  either  that  the  pro- 
fessional politician  of  Great  Britain  has  not  awakened  to  his  op- 
portunities or  that  the  opportunities  do  not  exist.  In  either  event 
that  country  has  been  barren  ground  for  the  boss,  the  heeler,  the 
gang,  and  a  mass  of  purchaseable  voters  represented  in  legislative 
bodies  by  a  machine  man.  Further,  our  workingmen  reformers 
have  a  different  political  outlook  before  them  and  different  ma- 
terials to  work  on  from  those  of  the  British  workingmen  reformers. 

The  relations  between  trade  unions  and  the  municipality  differ 
in  the  two  countries : 

In  Great  Britain  a  definite  policy  in  dealing  with  the  trade 
unionists  has  been  adopted  by  managers  of  municipal  undertakings ; 
in  this  country,  except  in  Chicago,  where  some  of  the  objects  of  the 
unions  are  attained  in  a  roundabout  manner,  the  municipalities 
have  given  union  officers  no  recognition  in  negotiating. 

In  America,  neither  public  nor  private  managers  have  put  into 
practice  a  system  of  making  individual  contracts  with  employees  to 
forestall  strikes,  as  is  done  in  the  public  Glasgow  and  the  private 
London  South  Metropolitan  Gas  Works;  nor  in  this  country  has 
any  system  of  pensioning  or  labor  copartnership  been  adopted. 

In  Great  Britain  whatever  important  changes  in  pay  and  hours 
have  taken  place  have  been  in  connection  with  the  municipal  tram- 
way employees  and  the  most  poorly  paid  laborers  protected  by  the 


82  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

"  minimum  wage "  ;  in  the  United  States  all  the  street  and 
interurban  railways  are  owned  and  operated  by  companies,  under 
whom  marked  changes  for  the  better  have  also  taken  place,  while 
day  laborers7  wages,  usually  double  or  nearly  double  those  of  Great 
Britain,  are  little  affected  by  the  municipal  minimum. 

In  the  municipalities  of  Great  Britain  there  are  no  civil  service 
regulations,  as  in  Chicago,  nor  a  general  "prevailing  rate"  law,  as 
in  New  York  and  Pennsylvania. 

Socialism  and  trade  unionism  are  closer  together  in  Great 
Britain  than  in  America. 

In  America  Socialism  has  had  no  direct  bearing  on  the  de- 
velopment of  the  municipal  enterprises  investigated;  in  Great 
Britain  prominent  trade-union  Socialists  assert  that  the  whole 
municipal  ownership  movement  of  the  kingdom  has  been  brought 
about  by  Socialist  agitation. 

Those  American  trade  unions  whose  ramifications  enter  into 
the  four  industries  investigated  have  no  Socialist  platforms  and 
publications,  as  do  the  unions  of  the  laborers,  gas  workers  and 
electrical  workers  of  Great  Britain.  The  American  labor  movement 
is  overwhelmingly  embodied  in  trade-unionism,  with  first  reliance 
on  the  strike,  a  method  which  has  here  done  the  uplifting;  the 
British  trade  union  with  respect  to  its  every-day  labors  is  a  benefit 
society,  and  with  respect  to  its  occasional  militant  efforts  is  now- 
adays the  main  support  of  Socialistic  tendencies.  A  general  strike 
in  recent  years  has  been  a  rarity. 

In  education  and  democracy  the  American  masses  are  im- 
measurably ahead. 

The  British  workingman  ever  since  the  kingdom's  tardy  estab- 
lishment of  a  school  system  has  been  the  victim  of  crude  and  often 
sectarian  educational  methods,  the  removal  of  some  of  its  abuses  in 
the  course  of  a  series  of  political  campaigns  being  recently  attended 
with  prolonged  acrimonious  public  debate  and  the  display  of 
religious  animosities.  America  long  ago  settled  this  question  in 
peace. 

In  Great  Britain,  the  influences  of  the  outgrown  established 
church,  of  the  feudal-minded  nobility,  of  the  bauble-distributing 
monarchy,  and  above  all  of  landlordism,  constantly  irritate,  hamper 
or  impoverish  the  masses.  In  America  no  one  or  two  men  draw 
ground  rent  from  half  or  two-thirds  a  city  or  a  borough,  as  do  two 
lords  of  the  kingdom  in  Liverpool,  or  the  Dukes  of  Bedford  and 
Westminster  in  London. 

The  extremely  narrow  limits  to  the  opportunities  of  the  masses 
in  Great  Britain  is  to  the  American  observer  a  fact  most  striking. 
Unemployment  in  America  is  not  condemnation  to  hopelessness; 
pauperism  is  not  the  common  lot  of  a  large  percentage  of  the  aged 
working  people. 

The  objects  of  trade  unionism  in  the  two  countries  differ : 

In  Great  Britain  the  composite  organization  of  tramway 
workers,  teamsters  and  drivers  of  all  sorts  has  a  total  mem- 
bership of  only  12,000.  In  two  of  the  largest  municipal  un- 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  83 

dertakings  investigated  the  workmen's  organizations  are  benefit 
societies  under  the  wing  oi  the  managers.  The  Electrical  Workers' 
Union  was  called  into  being  to  capture  the  work  of  contractors  on 
city  work;  its  bond  to  maintain  its  continuity  is  made  up  of  bene- 
fits; its  organ,  pessimistic  and  visionary  in  contents,  is  weighted 
with  the  propaganda  of  Socialism.  Among  the  unskilled,  however, 
mutual  benefit  trade  unionism  has  made  a  progress  that  is 
illustrated  by  the  existence  in  the  small  area  of  England  of  five 
national  laborers'  organizations,  each  supporting  a  staff  of  general 
officers.  In  none  of  the  American  enterprises  investigated  were  the 
laborers  organized,  a  difference  in  the  social  composition  of  the  two 
countries  being  suggested  by  the  fact  that  the  innumerable  Amer- 
ican benefit  societies  are  rarely  up  on  occupational  "\ines  and 
that  the  feature  of  paying  benefits  is  by  many  American  union 
leaders  regarded  as  a  drawback  to  the  more  profitable  venture  of 
striking  for  higher  wages  and  lower  hours.  A  union  without  benefits 
and  for  striking  purposes  only  would  be  allowed  to  languish  by  the 
British  workers.  Their  chances  for  winning  strikes  are  small,  un- 
employment being  so  general  now  for  years.  Their  minds  are  bent 
on  a  plodding  routine  of  insurance  in  a  state  of  chronic  distress 
rather  than  on  mastering  the  labor  market  in  order  to  take  as  a 
right  a  larger  share  of  an  increasing  national  production. 

British  workmen  in  the  mass  earn  hardly  as  much  money  as 
our  Southern  negroes : 

A  wide  difference  in  the  standard  of  earnings  for  the  wage 
working  classes  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain  is  indicated 
in  the  wage  scales  of  the  undertakings  investigated  in  the  two  coun- 
tries. In  Glasgow  the  minimum  municipal  wage,  for  which  thou- 
sands are  working,  is  21s.  ($5.09)  a  week;  in  Birmingham,  23s. 
($5.57)  ;  in  Liverpool,  24s.  ($5.81)  ;  in  Manchester,  25s.  ($6.07;  in 
London,  28s.  ($6.80).  These  are  the  rates  up  to  which  the  radical 
reformers  in  the  largest  and  most  advanced  cities  have  pushed  the 
municipal  scale  for  laborers,  men  without  special  skill  but  who  are 
selected  after  proof  of  character  and  capability.  The  run  of  the 
human  market,  as  taken  by  private  employers  in  general,  falls  for 
the  same  class  of  laborers  to  3s.  or  even  5s.  less  per  week.  But  in 
the  company  undertakings  investigated  the  average  minimum  ran 
little  below  that  of  the  municipal.  The  other  extreme  of  the  wage 
range,  the  maximum,  is  reached  by  the  trade  union  scales  for  skilled 
mechanics,  which  settles  at  32s.  to  34s.  a  week  in  Northeastern 
England,  where,  except  in  London,  the  highest  rates  are  recorded, 
and  only  a  shade  more  is  earned  in  London  itself.  Turning  to 
labor  in  the  American  municipal  enterprises  investigated,  we  find 
the  lowest  point  for  common  white  labor  at  $1.50  to  $2  a  day  in 
Syracuse,  $2.75  in  Allegheny,  $1.85  in  Wheeling,  $1.75  in  Cleve- 
land, $1.75  in  Detroit,  $2  in  Chicago,  and  $2  in  Eichmond.  In 
the  private  enterprises,  the  cheapest  grade  of  labor  draws  $1.75  in 
Philadelphia,  $1.50  in  New  Haven,  $1.60  and  $1.80  in  Indian- 
apolis, $2  in  Chicago,  and  $1  (negroes)  in  Atlanta.  The  weekly 
range  of  this  grade  for  the  municipalities  in  Great  Britain  is  from 


.84  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

$5.09  to  $6.80;  in  America  from  $9  to  $12  (omitting  the  excep- 
tionally high  rate  of  $16.50  in  Allegheny).  The  company  range  is 
just  the  same  (omitting  the  Atlanta  rate  for  negroes).  In  the 
United  Kingdom  the  company  rate  runs  better  than  the  municipal- 
ities in  the  gas  works  at  Sheffield  and  Newcastle  and  in  the  South 
Metropolitan  works  in  London,  while  it  is  slightly  lower  in  Nor- 
wich and  Dublin,  with  a  wider  difference  between  the  municipal 
and  company  systems  in  London. 

Living  is  cheaper  in  Great  Brtain  only  when  the  poor  people 
go  without  things  that  all  classes  of  Americans  can  have. 

A  member  of  the  Manchester  City  Council  Committee  on 
Tramways,  speaking  formally  at  a  joint  meeting  of  his  committee 
and  the  National  Civic  Federation  Committee  on  Investigation, 
said  that  to  the  working  man  £1  in  England  was  worth  £2  in 
America,  owing  to  the  difference  in  the  cost  of  living.  He  repeated 
a  belief  common  among  the  uninformed  in  England. 

On  this  very  large  subject,  the  reader  is  aware,  exact 
facts  are  frequently  elusive,  and  opinions  as  to  what  exhaustive  in- 
quiry might  elicit  may  with  reason  differ.  Trustworthy  definitive 
statistics  are  not  to  be  had.  Yet  not  to  publish  one's  own  reading 
of  the  simpler  facts  in  view,  and  not  to  give  one's  own  conclusions 
as  to  the  more  complex  phenomena  so  far  as  formed,  would  leave  a 
duty  unfulfilled. 

In  what  is  herewith  submitted,  the  reader  will  discriminate  be- 
tween the  facts  which  are  undoubted  and  the  impressions  which 
await  correction. 

Of  the  four  principal  items  of  the  married  workingman's  out- 
lay, food,  rent,  clothing  and  fuel,  the  first  is  the  most  important. 
It  is  usually  allotted  in  our  National  Labor  Department  tables,  on 
an  average,  50  to  65  per  cent,  of  a  year's  earnings.  Exportations  of 
American  grain  stuffs,  meats,  etc.,  to  Great  Britain,  it  is  plain,  can 
be  disposed  of  in  the  United  States  at  no  more  than  the  British 
market  prices.  In  other  words,  if  prices  were  higher  in  America, 
the  farm  products  exported  would  be  held  here  for  the  home  market. 
To  maintain  a  volume  of  exportation,  the  British  prices  must  be  the 
American  producer's  price  plus  the  costs  of  resale  and  shipment  to 
the  British  merchant.  In  the  first  four  months  of  1906  the  United 
Kingdom  imported  from  America  176,000  head  of  live  cattle, 
820,000  hundredweight  of  beef,  42,000  head  of  live  sheep,  1,500,000 
hundredweight  of  bacon,  400,000  hundredweight  of  hams,  with  but- 
ter, cheese,  and  eggs  in  quantities,  and  fruit  by  the  shipload.  This 
was  not  trust-owned  output  dumped  abroad  cheap,  but  commodities 
sold  under  competition.  The  British  workingman  can  obviously 
in  these  circumstances  not  buy  these  staples  of  life  at  lower  prices 
than  the  American.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  foods  of  the  British 
masses,  aside  from  bread,  are  mostly  made  up  of  dried  fish,  cheap 
meats,  and  the  common  kinds  of  vegetables.  Much  the  same  things 
go  on  the  table  the  year  round.  Fruit  is  usually  dear,  even  in  the 
short  season  of  the  British  Isles.  In  variety,  quantity  and  quality, 
the  articles  of  food  sold  to-day  in  Britain's  markets  bear  no  com- 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  85 

parison  with  those  in  the  American.     The  British  working  classes 
ordinarily  live  on  the  poor  grades  of  the  market  or  go  without.   As 
to  clothing,  whatever  verdict  might  once  have  been  declared  off-hand 
favorable  to  English  goods  and  make,  American  observers  at  present 
may  with  reason  ask  to  hear  from  American  clothing  and  shoe 
manufacturers  on  the  subject  before  the  question  is  settled  in  their 
minds.    Within  the  last  twenty  years  the  improvement  in  quality  of 
cloth  and  trimmings,  in  cut  and  fit,  of  the  American  workingman's 
clothes  has  been  one  of  the  most  notable  changes  in  the  outcome  of 
any  industry.    The  suit  selling  at  $20  or  more  in  England  is  usually 
of  better  cloth  than  one  of  the  same  price  in  the  United  States,  but 
the  eight  or  ten  dollar  American  suit,  made  under  a  system  of 
manufacture  as  to  which  the  English  have  much  to  learn,  is  of  the 
same  grade  of  cloth  as  the  English  and  of  superior  make.   American 
shoes  are  sold  in  every  city  of  England ;  American  furniture,  much 
cheaper  than  English,  is  on  the  market.    Again,  in  these  respects 
the  British  working  classes  buy  sparingly  as  compared  with  Amer- 
icans of  the  same  occupations.     They  wear  one  suit  at  work  and 
on  the  street  for  years,  with  a  two-shilling  cap  instead  of  a  two- 
dollar  derby.     Their  habitations  are  noticeably  bare  of  furniture. 
It  is  significant  that  while  in  England  the  slot  gas  meter  is  adjusted 
for  a  penny  in  America  it  takes  the  workingman's  quarter,  and 
there  is  no  mechanical  difficulty  in  adjusting  it  for  a  shilling  or 
even  a  sixpence.    As  to  rents,  there  is  as  much  difference  in  cost 
and  grade  of  housing  between  English  cities  as  between  English 
and  American  cities,  and  the  differences  between  American  cities 
seem  to  baffle  general  comparisons.     Further  differences  are  in- 
troduced in  this  country  by  its  three  classes  of  working  men — the 
American  born,  the  immigrants,  and  the  negroes.    On  this  question, 
general  averages  of  many  local  averages  are  liable  to  be  deceptive, 
and  quotation   of   particular   examples  cannot   give   the   inquirer 
satisfaction.     But   the   overcrowding  common  in  cities  of   Great 
Britain — the  tens  of  thousands  in  Glasgow,  Liverpool,  a'nd  London 
living  a  family  of  three  to  ten  persons  in  a  room,  the  hundreds  of 
thousands  in  all  the  Kingdom  living  a  family  in  two  rooms — is  un- 
known among  white  Americans.    There  are  cities  in  Great  Britain 
in  which  slum  life  is  the  fate  of  the  majority  of  the  workers.    In 
the  Glasgow  gas  works  meter  repair  workroom,  where  100  men  were 
at  work,  the  trade  union  speaker  for  the  hands  said  that  more  than 
90  per  cent,  of  them  lived  with  their  families  in  one  room  and  a 
kitchen.  When  the  low  rent  of  the  British  workingman  is  mentioned 
it  commonly  connotes  a  neighborhood  and  an  environment  that  to 
an  average  American  would  be  unendurable.     Moreover,  what  the 
tenant  gets  differs  vastly  in  the  two  countries.  An  American's  ideas 
of  the  requirements  of  a  dwelling  place  are  more  exacting  than  an 
English  workingman's.  And  when  all  is  said,  the  actual  outlay  for  a 
wage-worker's  housing  in  Gieat  Britain,  having  regard  to  number  of 
rooms,  appointments,  house  space  and  yard  space,  is  not  at  a  per- 
centage so  much  lower  .as  to  impress  the  American  who  knows  the 
variations  existing  in  his  own  land.     Last  summer,  Miss  Octavia 


86  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

Hill  opened  up  in  an  improved  area  in  Southwark,  London,  several 
blocks  of  rows  of  cottages  in  which  eight  hundred  families  were  to 
be  accommodated.  The  rents  for  flats  in  these  houses  ran  from 
5s.  6d.  to  10s.  6d.  per  week,  or  about  $7  to  $12  a  month ;  five-room 
cottages  were  held  at  $18  a  month.  A  similar  scale  of  housing  can 
be  had  in  Philadelphia  at  much  the  same  rates.  For  the  better 
grade  of  cottages  at  Cadbury's  Bourneville  the  rents  do  not  seem 
low  to  an  American  acquainted  with  the  average  rents  of  the  smaller 
cities  of  New  England  and  Pennsylvania. 

One  item  in  the  outlay  of  the  British  workingman,  taken  in  the 
mass,  British  statisticians  report,  exceeds  by  50  per  cent,  that  of  the 
American  workingman,  taken  in  the  mass.  It  is  drink.  That  plain 
water  is  not  a  table  drmk  is  a  prevailing  national  sentiment  in 
Great  Britain.  The  most  popular  and  usually  the  only  meeting 
centre  for  the  men  in  British  factory  towns  is  the  public  house. 
Restaurant  meals  almost  invariably  include  a  drink  other  than  pure 
water.  This  habit  of  the  British  nation  must  be  taken  into  account 
in  estimating  the  cost  of  living. 

The  American  wageworkers  are  inspired  by  hope;  the  British 
wageworkers  are  commonly  not. 

In  traveling  from  place  to  place  in  the  United  States  and 
mingling  among  the  wageworkers,  the  observer  frequently  hears 
references  to  achievements  in  the  lives  of  laboring  men  formerly 
neighbors,  or  once  of  the  very  circle  present,  which  convey  an  im- 
pression of  a  society  that,  whatever  the  struggles  of  the  mass,  sees 
constant  changes  of  large  numbers  of  individuals  for  the  better.  In 
Great  Britain  little  of  the  talk  runs  this  way.  America  has  space, 
and  the  workers  move  about  in  it  continually;  it  has  cheap  land, 
readily  transferable,  in  suburb  or  country,  East  or  West ;  it  has  col- 
leges and  universities  at  which  many  of  the  students  are  earn- 
ing their  way;  it  has  enormous  numbers  of  wageworkers  buying 
their  own  homes,  separately  or  in  association;  it  has  democracy  in 
politics,  and  numberless  openings  for  a  political  career,  worthy  or 
unworthy.  In  all  these  regards,  Britain  differs  greatly  as  to  degree 
if  not  wholly  as  to  kind.  The  British  workman  travels  little,  can- 
not buy  a  farm  or  take  free  a  homestead;  he  rarely  gets  to  college, 
and  he  regards  a  professional  or  business  career  as  ordinarily  be- 
yond his  dreams.  The  confirmed  attitude  of  the  British  workman 
toward  life  is  discouragement ;  the  tone  of  his  conversation,  the  in- 
terpretation of  his  spirit,  is  despondency.  Not  yet  can  this  be 
said  of  the  American  workingman. 

Poverty  in  Great  Britain  has  reached  the  point  at  which  it  is 
affrighting  the  nation.  London  alone  had  140,000  paupers  last 
year.  It  has  70,000  to  80,000  dodgers."  The  general  physical 
deterioration  of  Englishmen  is  shown  in  the  repeated  reductions  of 
the  army  standard  of  height.  The  London  Daily  Standard,  July  5 
last,  said:  "The  upshot  amounts  to  this,  that  the  poor  quarters  in 
all  our  great  cities  have  become  reeking,  overcrowded  hives  of  only 
partially  employed,  underfed,  and  rapidly  degenerating  men  and 
women,  from  whom  fate  and  their  own  action,  destiny  and  the  con- 


THE    LABOR    REPORT.  87 

ditions  of  their  life  seem  to  have  removed  all  rights,  and  all  power, 
save  the  continuance  and  reproduction  of  their  downward-tending 
species."  The  number  of  emigrants  last  year  from  Britain  was 
270,000,  nearly  every  one  driven  out  by  the  menace  of  poverty. 
In  addition  to  the  usual  appropriations  for  the  800,000  paupers  of 
the  Kingdom,  $440,000  was  spent  last  year  under  the  Unemployed 
Workmen  act,  the  sum  this  year  being  made  $1,000,000,  while 
the  amount  to  be  given  In  the  local  authorities  and  the  charitable 
for  the  same  purpose  was  expected  to  reach  possibly  $1,000,000 
more.  Eighty-nine  distress  committees  had  been  set  up  last  }^ear 
throughout  the  country.  It  is  a  generally  accepted  custom  among 
the  poor  people  to  allow  their  parents  to  go  to  the  workhouse  during 
hard  times.  The  trade  union  minimum  wage  for  England  in  gen- 
eral outside  London  is  $5.81  per  week.  The  Italian  swarms  of  labor- 
ers, who  can  compete  with  the  negroes,  and  who  underwork  the  Rus- 
sian Jews  in  Xew  York  factories,  have  never  attempted  to  get  a 
footing  in  England.  A  tenth  of  the  present  immigration  to  the 
United  States  would  precipitate  in  Great  Britain  a  national  dis- 
order. 

In  their  distressing  situation  many  English  wageworkers  are 
ready  to  embrace  any  economic  movement  that  promises  even  a  small 
fraction  of  them  relief.  Victims  of  desperate  social  diseases,  they 
have  grasped  at  desperate  social  remedies.  The  trade  unions  being 
driven  into  political  action  through  the  Taff  Vale  decision,  many 
of  the  working  classes  in  general  were  stampeded  on  in  among 
the  Socialists.  Their  present  economic  tendencies  find  origin 
in  their  life-long  heartrending  distress,  in  their  pent-up  existence, 
in  the  opportunities  presented  by  the  expiration  of  franchises, 
and  in  the  work  of  social  theorists  who  are  the  product  of  political 
and  economic  conditions  unknown  in  America,  and  whose  teachings 
make  little  headway  with  the  American  masses  and  have  been  re- 
jected time  and  again  at  the  conventions  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor. 


LABOR    AND  POLITICS 


Py    JOHN    R.   COMMONS 


In  summarizing  the  report  which  Mr.  Sullivan  and  I  have 
made  on  political  and  labor  conditions  in  America  and  Great  Brit- 
ain/ it  is  impossible  for  me  to  pick  out  the  sentences  here  and  there 
favorable  to  municipal  ownership  and  to  discredit  the  sentences  fa- 
vorable to  private  ownership.  I  shall  take  the  report  as  a  whole, 
and  shall  tr}r  to  bring  together  all  of  the  facts  exactly  as  they  are 
and  in  their  true  proportions.2  In  order  that  my  position  may  be 
more  clearly  understood  I  will  say  in  advance  that  neither  munic- 
ipal ownership  nor  private  ownership  have  accomplished  the  good 
results  in  the  United  States  that  should  be  expected  of  them/  and 
both  are  far  behind  what  both  have  accomplished  in  Great  Britain. 
I  attribute  this  backwardness  mainly  to  the  infancy  of  the  move- 
ment for  municipal  ownership  in  the  United  States.  The  Ameri- 
can people  have  never  seriously  studied  in  detail  the  financial,  polit- 
ical, administrative  and  labor  conditions  necessary  to  make  munic- 
ipal ownership  a  success,  because  they  have  never  had  thrown  upon 
them  the  responsibility  and  necessity  of  making  it  a  success.  The 
question  has  not  yet  been  big  enough  to  attract  attention,  and  all 
the  energies  of  the  people  in  municipal  government  have  been  con- 
sumed in  fighting  the  private  corporations  which  have  possession.* 
We  are  in  precisely  the  same  position  that  British  municipalities 
occupied  40  years  ago  in  the  gas  business  and  15  to  30  years  ago 
in  the  street  car  and  electricity  business.5  And  the  two  most  notice- 
able facts  regarding  the  movement  in  Great  Britain  are  the  steady 
improvement  made  in  municipal  operation  after  municipal  owner- 
ship had  passed  the  fighting  stage  and  had  become  a  settled  policy, 
and  also  the  great  improvement  in  private  ownership  and  operation 
during  the  same  period.  In  comparing  the  two  countries,  I  have 
been  impressed  by  this  fact  more  than  anything  else,  that  successful 
private  operation  follows  successful  municipal  operation.  The 
private  companies  in  Great  Britain  have  learned  to  accept  and  act 
upon  a  view  of  their  public  obligations  which  we  have  found  to  be 
utterly  foreign  and  inconceivable  to  the  managers  of  similar  private 
undertakings  in  the  United  States.  This  is  seen  most  strikingly 
in  the  fact  that  the  British  companies  were  willing  that  our  en- 
gineers should  make  a  physical  valuation  of  their  properties  for 
comparison  with  their  capitalization  and  their  earnings,  whereas  the 
American  companies  would  not  permit  such  a  valuation.8  Many 
of  the  British  companies  also  for  years  have  been  subject  to  com- 


LABOR   AND    POLITICS.  89 

plete  publicity  of  their  accounts  and  examination  of  their  books 
by  public  auditors  and  accountants,  thus  furnishing  information 
that  we  are  not  able  to  get  in  America.  This  kind  of  information 
is  essential  both  from  the  standpoint  of  the  prices  paid  by  consum- 
ers and  that  of  the  wages  paid  to  employees,  because  it  enables  us 
to  know  whether  prices  are  as  low  and  wages  are  as  high  as  the 
companies  can  reasonably  afford.  Another  instance  of  the  higher 
view  of  their  obligations  held  by  British  companies  is  the  many 
precautions  they  have  taken  to  conciliate  their  employees  and  to 
prevent  the  necessity  of  strikes.  In  every  case  this  higher  view 
has  come  about  because  the  companies  have  before  them  the  menace 
of  municipal  ownership  if  they  do  not  live  up  to  their  public  obli- 
gations.7 They  cannot  afford  to  have  strikes,  because  they  would 
at  once  arouse  into  action  the  demand  for  municipal  ownership. 
They  cannot  afford  to  keep  their  accounts  private,  because  in  order 
to  head  off  municipal  ownership  they  must  let  the  people  know 
just  how  much  profit  they  are  making.8  The  consequence  is  that 
many  of  the  vices  which  we  have  found  in  private  ownership  in  the 
United  States  and  which  were  formerly  found  in  Great  Britain 
have  been  largely  eliminated  in  that  country.9  And  at  the  same 
time  the  vices  and  crudities  of  municipal  ownership  which  we  have 
found  in  the  United  States  have  been  largely  eliminated  in  Great 
Britain  through  experience  and  through  the  accurate  comparison 
which  can  always  be  made  with  private  ownership. 

With  these  preliminary  observations,  it  will  be  seen  that  in 
weighing  and  interpreting  the  facts,10  I  cannot,  as  an  offset  to  the 
summary  prepared  by  my  colleague,  confine  myself  simply  to  the 
facts  that  discredit  private  ownership  and  exalt  municipal  owner- 
ship, but  I  must  summarize  all  of  the  facts.  In  doing  so,1  my  inter- 
pretation requires  that  at  least  for  some  time  to  come,  both  private 
ownership  and  municipal  ownership  be  carried  along  side  by  side 
in  the  same  country;  that  each  municipality  have  full  power  and 
home  rule  to  change  from  one  to  the  other  according  to  its  judg- 
ment of  which  it  is  that  offers  the  better  results  in  the  given  case ; 
and  that  in  this  way  the  defects  of  both  municipal  and  private  own- 
ership in  the  United  States  may  be  gradually  eliminated  and  both 
may  be  brought  to  the  higher  level  occupied  by  both  in  Great 
Britain. 

MONOPOLIES    AND    POLITICS. 

I  take  it  that  the  key  to  the  whole  question  of  municipal  or 
private  ownership  is  the  question  of  politics.12  For  politics  is  simply 
the  question  of  getting  and  keeping  the  right  kind  of  men  to  man- 
age and  operate  the  municipal  undertakings,  or  to  supervise,  regu- 
late and  bargain  with  the  private  undertakings.  The  kinds  of  busi- 
ness that  we  are  dealing  with  are  essentially  monopolies  performing 
a  public  service,  and  are  compelled  to  make  use  of  the  streets  which 
are  public  property.  If  their  owners  are  private  companies  they 
are  compelled  to  get  their  franchises  and  all  privileges  of  doing 
business,  and  all  terms  and  conditions  of  service  from  the  munici- 
pal authorities.  And  in  carrying  out  their  contract  with  the 


90  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

municipality  they  are  dealing  continually  with  municipal  officials. 
Consequently  it  is  absurd  to  assume  that  private  ownership  is  non- 
political.  It  is  just  as  much  a  political  question  to  get  and  keep 
honest  or  business-like  municipal  officials  who  will  drive  good  bar- 
gains with  private  companies  on  behalf  of  the  public  and  then  see 
that  the  bargains  are  lived  up  to,  as  it  is  to  get  similar  officials  to 
operate  a  municipal  plant.  We  do  not  escape  politics  by  resorting 
to  private  ownership — we  only  get  a  different  kind  of  practical 
politics. 

Since  these  businesses  are  monopolies  of  public  service  and 
must  make  use  of  public  property,  the  question  of  municipal  owner- 
ship is  entirely  different  from  that  of  other  kinds  of  business.  A 
private  business  that  has  no  dealings  with  municipal  officials  and 
is  regulated  by  competition,  has  no  place  in  this  investigation  except 
by  way  of  contrast.18  We  have  found  that  this  difference  between 
the  two  kinds  of  business  is  not  always  appreciated  by  certain 
classes.  These  are  the  socialists  and  the  public  utility  corporations. 
The  socialists  are  opposed  to  private  competition  in  any  form  and 
would  extend  public  ownership  to  all  kinds  of  business.  The  public 
utility  corporations  and  their  defenders  naturally  seize  upon  thi« 
position  of  the  socialists  to  confuse  the  issues  respecting  their  own 
kind  of  business.  The  public  at  large  is  misled  for  a  time  until 
the  distinction  comes  to  be  one  of  practical  importance.  This  atti- 
tude of  the  several  parties  to  the  controversy  was  most  clearly 
brought  to  our  attention  in  Glasgow,  where  public  ownership  has 
been  extended  to  all  of  the  businesses  occupying  the  streets.  Fol- 
lowing the  <;  municipal  tramways  of  1894,  many  projects  were 
brought  forward  for  further  municipalization,  including  banking, 
housing,  insurance,  tailoring  and  baking.  Councillors  were  elected 
favorable  to  these  proposals,  and  the  voters,  inspired  by  the  remark- 
able success  of  the  tramways,  were  not  critical  in  their  inspection 
of  these  new  enterprises  which  the  council  was  contemplating.  In 
the  midst  of  this  socialistic  tide,  two  anti-municipal  ownership 
associations  were  organized — the  Citizens'  Union  and  the  Rate- 
Payers'  Federation.  They  started  an  active  agitation,  and.  along 
with  other  influences,  the  tide  of  municipalization  has  been  checked 
or  stopped.  We  were  led  tc  believe  that  from  these  two  associations 
we  could  secure  information  that  would  correct  the  universal  en- 
dorsement of  municipal  ownership  found  elsewhere  in  Glasgow,1* 
but  were  surprised  to  find  that  both  associations  endorsed  all  that 
had  been  done  in  municipalizing  tramways,  electricity,  gas,  and 
water.  They  only  opposed  the  municipalization  of  other  under- 
takings competitive  in  character.  No  more  conclusive  endorsement 
of  the  success  of  municipal  ownership  in  Glasgow  could  have  been 
brought  to  our  attention,  but  at  the  same  time  nothing  more  con- 
clusive could  be  offered  to  show  that  the  general  public  cannot  be 
permanently  deceived  by  the  fallacy  of  the  socialists  and  the  dodge 
of  the  franchise  corporations  in  confusing  competitive  business  with 
monopolistic  public-service  business.  The  essential  difference  is 
that  the  public-service  business  is  in  politics,  whether  operated  by 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  ftt 

a  private  company  or  by  a  municipality,  but  the  competitive  busi- 
ness does  not  depend  on  politicians  for  its  profits. 

At  this  point  1  am  unhappily  compelled  to  put  in  a  word  of 
personal  explanation  as  to  the  facts  brought  out  in  our  investiga- 
tions.15 I  do  this  with  the  greatest  reluctance  and  only  because  my 
colleague  has  seen  fit  to  discredit  or  disclaim  those  portions  of  our 
report  which  deal  with  the  political  activity  of  public-service  cor- 

?  orations.  The  personal  explanation  required  is  to  the  effect  that 
investigated  thoroughly,  or,  as  he  says,  "sifted  the  back-stairs  and 
dark-room  talk  down  to  substantial  truth,"  both  of  the  political 
activities  of  municipal  undertakings  and  the  political  activities  of 
private  undertakings;18  and  the  entire  report  as  it  stands,  except 
New  Haven  and  Philadelphia,  was  written  by  myself  on  the  basis 
of  facts  which  I  personally  investigated.  I  have  set  forth  in  com- 
plete detail  the  political  facts  regarding  municipal  operation,  to 
which  he  confines  his  summary,  and  have  also  set  forth  in  the 
same  way  the  political  facts  regarding  private  operation.  Both  are 
backed  by  the  same  thoroughness  of  investigation,"  and  I  am  a& 
positive  of  the  facts  stated  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

POLITICAL    EMPLOYEES. 

This  can  be  tested  by  the  situation  of  the  Wheeling  gas  works. 
The  secretary  of  the  Wheeling  Gas  Trustees,  quoted  by  my  colleague 
as  testifying  to  the  political  rottenness  of  the  municipal  gas  works,, 
is  the  same  man  who  testified  to  the  political  rottenness  of  the  pri- 
vate gas,  electricity  and  street  car  companies  of  that  locality.  In- 
stead of  relying  on  his  statements,  I  interviewed  a  large  number 
of  officials,  politicians,  business  men,  employees  and  others,  and 
checked  up  his  statements  respecting  both  the  gas  works  and  the 
corporations.  This  shows  that  while  the  gas  works  are  in  politics, 
the  public-service  corporations  are  also  in  politics.18  The  gas  em- 
ployees take  part  in  the  primaries  of  the  Republican  party  and  the 
motormen  and  conductors  of  the  street  car  companies  are  given 
leave  of  absence  on  pay  to  work  in  the  primaries  of  both  the  Repub- 
lican and  Democratic  parties.  Even  the  officers  of  the  street  rail- 
way employees'  union  take  part  in  this  kind  of  traction  politics  on 
behalf  of  their  employees.  The  councilmen  and  aldermen  nom- 
inated and  elected  in  this  way  control  the  municipal  gas  works 
and  they  control  the  franchises  and  contracts  of  the  private  com- 
panies. The  "City  Hall  Ring"  is  just  as  much  a  ring  of  the  polit- 
ical tools  of  the  private  corporations  as  it  is  a  ring  of  municipal 
politicians.  To  pick  out  the  politics  of  the  gas  works  and  not  to 
•?ee  that  it  is  bound  up  with  the  politics  of  the  private  corporations 
would  be  a  perverse  and  one-sided  method  of  investigation.  The 
report  gives  not  selected  facts,  but  all  of  the  facts  in  the  situation.1* 
Indeed,  the  secretary  of  the  Wheeling  Gas  Trustees,  in  his  indigna- 
tion towards  the  political  management  of  the  gas  works,  referred 
to  by  my  colleague,  was  defeated  in  the  Republican  primaries  by 
the  motormen  and  conductors  of  the  street  car  company  on  leave 
of  absence  as  political  workers. 


92  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

In  cities  other  than  Wheeling  the  convention  system  prevails 
instead  of  the  direct  primaries,  and  consequently  it  was  not  found 
that  the  wage  earners  of  the  private  companies  took  a  similar 
active  part  in  political  campaigns.  But  in  Syracuse,  Allegheny 
Indianapolis  and  Philadelphia,  where  municipal  employees  are 
named  by  politicians,  it  was  found  also  that  street  car,  electric,  gas 
and  water  companies  had  employed  men  on  the  recommendation 
of  councilmen,  mayor  or  chairman  of  a  political  committee.20  This 
practice  was  carried  furthest  by  the  street  car  companies  of  Syra- 
cuse and  Allegheny.  In  Chicago,  where  a  most  rigid  civil  service 
law  is  enforced,  no  evidence  of  political  appointments  could  be 
found  in  the  municipal  electricity  or  water  departments  during 
recent  years,  but  men  were  hired  on  recommendation  of  aldermen 
by  the  private  electrical  companies  at  the  time  when  their  contracts 
were  before  the  council  for  renewal. 

There  is  a  distinction  which  has  been  found  in  all  of  these 
cases  between  political  appointments  in  municipal  undertakings  and 
political  appointments  by  franchise  corporations.21  The  alderman 
or  mayor  who  secures  the  appointment  of  a  political  supporter  on 
a  municipal  job  exerts  himself  just  as  much  to  retain  that  man  in 
his  job  as  he  did  to  get  the  appointment  for  him.  But  both  he  and 
his  supporters  take  a  different  view  when  the  appointment  is 
secured  with  a  street  railway,  gas  or  electric  company.  The  alder- 
man then  says,  "I  get  the  job  for  you,  but  you  must  make  good ;  I 
cannot  keep  the  job  for  you ;  the  company  has  the  right  to  discharge 
you  if  you  don't  do  your  work."  It  is  for  this  reason  that  the  pri- 
vate company  has  an  advantage  over  the  municipal  management 
under  the  spoils  system,  for  it  can  get  rid  of  a  political  appointee 
after  trying  him  out  and  finding  him  inefficient.  This  explains 
also  why  it  is  that  the  employees  of  a  franchise  corporation,  even 
though  they  get  their  appointments  through  politicians,  are  never- 
theless found  to  take  an  active  part  in  organizing  themselves  in  a 
trade  union,  but  where  they  depend  on  the  politicians  for  retaining 
their  jobs  and  improving  their  wages  and  conditions  they  do  not 
look  to  a  union  for  protection.  Where  the  politicians'  support 
stops  after  appointment,  as  in  a  private  undertaking,  they  are  more 
likely  to  protect  themselves  by  organizing  a  union.  The  result  is 
similar  in  a  municipal  undertaking  when  civil  service  reform 
releases  the  employee  from  depending  on  a  politician.  The  trade 
unions  in  Chicago  have  no  difficulty  in  organizing  the  workmen 
who  have  been  appointed  through  the  Civil  Service  Commission, 
but  they  are  not  able  to  get  the  '^hold-overs"  who  came  in  through 
political  pull. 

Curiously  enough,  the  politician  profits  more  in  some  respects 
by  the  appointments  which  he  secures  for  his  supporters  with  a 
franchise  company  than  he  does  by  those  on  municipal  jobs.  Since 
all  parties  understand  that  the  alderman's  influence  stops  after 
appointment,  there  is  no  ill  feeling  on  the  part  of  his  supporter 
if  he  is  discharged.  He  and  his  family  and  friends  continue  to  be 
the  supporters  of  the  alderman  who  has  done  his  best  for  them,  and 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  03 

his  discharge  at  the  same  time  makes  room  for  the  alderman  to 
name  another  man  who  also  with  his  family  and  friends  become 
supporters.  It  is  different  in  municipal  employment,  where  it  is 
expected  that  the  politician  who  gets  the  job  for  his  follower  will 
keep  it  for  him.  If  he  is  removed  from  that  job  he  loses  confidence 
in  the  ability  or  good  faith  of  the  politician.  On  account  of  these 
differences  in  the  attitude  of  workmen,  politicians  and  managers, 
the  private  corporation  in  politics  is  more  efficient  from  the  stand- 
point of  its  stockholders  than  the  municipal  undertaking  in  politics, 
and  at  the  same  time  the  capable  politician  can  build  up  his  organi- 
zation just  as  effectively  under  one  system  as  under  the  other." 
Where  civil  service  rules  are  enforced,  as  in  the  Chicago  Electric 
and  Water  departments,  this  political  influence  is  excluded,  but 
there  is  no  way  of  preventing  a  private  corporation  from  hiring 
its  employees  on  the  recommendation  of  a  politician. 

There  are  other  differences  which  operate  to  the  advantages  of 
the  private  corporation.  Its  employees  are  more  minutely  special- 
ized, and  a  few  positions  of  a  permanent,  semi-political  character 
are  created  which  are  kept  distinct  from  the  technical  and  admin- 
istrative positions,  whereas  in  the  municipal  undertaking,  without 
civil  service  rules,  a  larger  proportion  of  the  positions  are  likely 
to  be  semi-political.  The  municipal  undertaking  is  compelled  to 
keep  a  few  sub-managers,  foremen  and  inspectors  who  are  familiar 
with  the  layout  of  the  plant  and  distributing  system,  and  such  posi- 
tions have  been  found  to  be  permanent,  while  the  other  positions 
are  subject  to  political  vicissitude.  In  the  private  corporations 
investigated  the  political  positions  are  found  not  so  much  in  the 
operating  department  as  in  the  legal  department  and  among  the 
directors,  presidents,  and  highest  officials.23  These  make  the  bargains 
directly,  by  means  of  a  cash  consideration  or  otherwise,  with  the 
political  managers.  Only  where  nominations  are  made  by  direct 
primaries,  as  in  Wheeling,  has  it  been  found  that  the  rank  and  file 
of  the  employees  are  retained  on  account  of  this  political  influence. 

Under  the  convention  system  of  nominations  the  principal 
activity  of  private  corporations  was  found  to  be  that  of  contribu- 
tions to  the  expenses  of  campaign  committees  and  candidates.  It 
is  difficult  to  see  that  it  is  necessarily  dishonorable  or  corrupt  for 
any  citizen  to  contribute  according  to  his  ability  toward  the  ex- 
penses of  his  political  party  in  conducting  a  campaign.  The  edu- 
cation of  the  voters  respecting  the  issues  is  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance and  requires  coi  responding  expenditures.  But  for  some 
reason  these  contributions  are  looked  upon  as  strictly  confidential, 
and  it  was  only  through  the  accident  of  my  personal  acquaintance 
with  certain  participants  in  Syracuse  and  Indianapolis  that  any 
information  on  the  point  was  given  to  me.  This  shows  a  contribu- 
tion of  $2,000  in  Syracuse  by  two  directors  of  the  gas  company 
to  the  Democratic  campaign  committee,  in  a  municipal  election. 
It  shows  contributions  at  Indianapolis  by  the  water  company  in 
the  municipal  campaign  of  1903  of  $300,  and  in  1905  of  $1,500 
to  the  Democratic  committee,  and  in  1905  of  $5,000  to  the  Kepub- 


D4  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

lican  committee.  In  1905  the  street  car  company  paid  $10,000  to 
the  Eepublican  committee,  and  $2,000  to  the  Democratic  committee, 
and  the  gas  company  paid  $17,000  to  the  Eepublican  committee. 
The  Republican  administration,  elected  in  1905,  has  to  deal  with 
important  franchises  and  contracts  renewable  during  its  term.  Pro- 
fessor Gray's  investigations  of  the  New  Haven  water  company  show 
that  the  president  of  the  common  council  which  granted  a  perpet- 
ual franchise  to  the  company  was  one  of  the  company's  own  em- 
ployees and  that  the  company  expended  $20,457.44  to  get  this 
franchise  through  the  council  and  the  legislature,  in  addition  to 
the  fees  of  $1,498.89  paid  to  the  regular  counsel  for  drawing  up 
the  contract. 

EFFICIENCY    OF    MUNICIPAL    OPERATION. 

Whatever  weakens  or  corrupts  city  government  in  its  admitted 
duties  of  protecting  the  health,  property,  life  and  morals  of  its 
citizens  also  weakens  or  corrupts  it  in  operating  public  utilities  or 
in  regulating  the  private  operation  of  those  utilities.  We  cannot 
separate  the  question  of  municipal  or  private  operation  from  the 
question  of  honest  and  efficient  city  government  in  every  other 
department.  The  municipal  corporation  is  a  unit,  and  the  supply 
of  either  water,  gas,  electricity  or  transportation  is  only  a  single 
department  of  its  work,  and  is  good  or  bad  to  the  same  extent  that 
the  other  departments  of  police,  fire,  health,  parks  and  taxes  are 

food  or  bad.  When  we  investigate  the  politics  and  labor  of  these 
our  public  utilities  we  are  investigating  the  whole  question  of 
municipal  government.  If  the  conditions  are  such  that  the  city 
does  not  operate  or  regulate  these  utilities  satisfactorily,  we  find 
that  it  does  not  do  anything  else  satisfactorily.  This  fact  is  abun- 
dantly demonstrated  when  we  take  up  one  by  one  the  several  factors 
that  go  to  make  up  the  total  political  life  of  a  city. 

First  is  the  suffrage.  In  all  of  the  Northern  cities  of  the 
United  States  the  suffrage  is  on  the  universal  manhood  basis.  In 
the  Southern  cities  it  is  restricted  by  education  or  poll-tax  require- 
ments, and  in  British  cities  by  tenant,  lodger  and  household  limita- 
tions. These  restrictions  bear  most  heavily  on  the  wage-earning 
classes,  amounting  to  the  exclusion  of  one-fourth  to  two-fifths  of 
the  wage-earners.  But  the  classes  excluded  are  the  casual  and 
irregular  laborers,  the  pauperized  and  indifferent  workers,  the 
hoodlum  and  hooligan  elements.  These  are  mainly  the  unorganized 
laborers,  so  that  in  England  the  trade  unions  have  the  field  to  them- 
selves more  than  they  have  in  the  United  States  for  entering  upon 
a  political  movement.  They  are  not  compelled  to  make  alliances 
with  political  bosses  who  know  how  to  get  these  unorganized  voters. 
In  two  Northern  cities,  Indianapolis  and  Syracuse,  definite  infor- 
mation was  obtained  of  bribery  of  the  voters.  In  Indianapolis  the 
bribable  voters  are  largely  the  colored  element  of  the  town,  and  in 
Syracuse  the  hoodlum,  immigrant  and  colored  element  of  the  down- 
town precincts.  Among  these  voters  a  large  part  of  the  campaign 
-contributions  is  distributed.24 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  f»5 

Next  to  the  suffrage  are  the  qualifications  of  the  councillors, 
aldermen  and  city  officials.  In  the  British  cities  only  the  council- 
lors are  elected,  one  each  year,  holding  three  years  for  each  ward. 
The  councillors  elect  the  aldermen  and  the  city  officials.  Most 
important  of  all,  the  councillors  and  aldermen  are  not  required  to 
live  in  the  wards  they  represent,  and  many  of  them  live  in  the 
suburbs.  One-half  to  four-fifths  of  the  councillors  and  aldermen 
live  outside  the  wards  they  represent,  and  the  proportion  is  strik- 
ingly larger  in  the  working-class  wards,  which  elect  two-thirds  to 
nine-tenths  of  their  councillors  from  outside.  Many  inquiries  were 
made  as  to  the  reasons,  on  the  part  of  voters.,  for  this  indifference 
as  to  the  place  of  residence  of  their  candidates,  and  the  explanation 
that  seems  adequate  is  the  absence  of  campaign  and  corruption 
funds  and  the  inability  of  councillors  to  find  jobs  for  their  con- 
stituents. The  councillor  in  Glasgow  who  is  most  active  in  pressing 
for  jobs  in  the  municipal  service  lives  in  the  ward  which  he  repre- 
sents, among  constituents  in  need  of  employment.  Furthermore, 
councillors  and  aldermen  are  unsalaried.  This  freedom  of  choice 
makes  it  possible  to  elecc  both  the  leading  business  men  and  the 
leading  labor  men  to  govern  the  city.  Not  only  do  we  find  eminent 
bankers,  financiers  and  employers  of  labor  in  the  councils.,  but  we 
find  the  secretaries  and  officials  of  trade  unions,  most  of  them  living 
outside  the  wards  they  represent.  The  absence  of  such  leaders  and 
truly  representative  men  from  American  city  councils  is  the  most 
discouraging  fact  brought  to  our  attention.23  We  have  not  found 
any  of  the  leading  business  men  corresponding  to  those  in  British 
cities.  The  largest  delegation  of  wage-earners  which  we  found  was 
in  the  city  of  Wheeling,  where  they  number  fourteen,  but  not  one 
of  them  was  an  official  or  representative  of  a  trade-union,  although 
the  unions  are  stronger  in  Wheeling  than  in  the  other  places  visited. 
There  the  wage-earning  councillors  were  largely  the  employees  of 
corporations  whose  owners  were  interested  in  the  public  utility  cor- 
porations. Their  campaign  expenses  were  paid  from  those  sources, 
and  their  successful  qualities  were  those  of  a  good  "mixer"  with 
the  voters  and  obedience  to  their  employers  in  casting  their  votes 
as  councilmen.  In  other  cities  not  provided  with  the  direct  primary 
system  of  nominations  there  were  practically  no  wage-earners  in 
the  council. 

In  American  cities  the  form  of  organization  has  been  found  to 
be  most  complicated.  Authority  and  responsibility  are  scattered 
here  and  there  in  a  mayor,  a  commission,  a  superintendent,  a  coun- 
cil, a  committee  of  the  council,  or  even  two  committees,  sometimes 
a  joint  committee  of  two  branches  of  the  council,  a  civil  service 
•commission,  and  so  on.  The  finances  and  accounts  of  municipal 
undertakings  are  mixed  with  those  of  other  departments.  Scarcely 
any  system  that  we  have  investigated  would  for  a  moment  be 
recognized  as  satisfactory  for  an  effective  business  management.*1 
The  voters  are  unable  to  tell  who  is  responsible  or  what  exactly  are 
the  financial  results.  The  one  pre-eminent  advantage  of  private 
operation  is  centralized  control  by  one  man,  subject  to  a  board  of 


96  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

directors.  This  is  also  the  form  of  organization  of  the  British 
cities,  where  a  committee  01  the  council  takes  the  place  of  the  board 
of  directors,  and  the  manager,  selected  by  the  committee,  holds  his 
position  not  for  a  fixed  term  but  permanently,  or  until  removed. 
The  American  system  most  nearly  corresponding  is  the  commission 
system  of  South  Norwalk  and  Detroit,  which  permits  the  selection 
of  men  from  any  part  of  the  city  and  retains  a  number  of  them 
when  others  drop  out. 

The  foregoing  statements  refer  only  to  the  legal  or  formal 
organization  of  British  ard  American  cities.  The  real  political 
influences  behind  this  formal  organization  are  found  in  the  con- 
flicting interests  of  the  voters  who  elect  or  control  the  city  officials. 
In  both  countries  the  interests  that  are  most  important  in  deciding 
the  results  are  those  of  the  saloon-keepers,  real  estate  owners,  polit- 
ical parties,  trade  unions,  municpal  employees,  business  classes, 
contractors  and  franchise  corporations. 

In  both  countries  the  saloons,  known  in  England  as  the  "public 
house,"  or  "pub,"  are  regulated  by  the  municipal  council.27  This 
compels  them  in  self  protection  to  take  a  part  in  politics.  In  some 
places,  like  Glasgow,  their  candidates  make  a  pretense  of  standing 
for  workingmen,  and  they  appeal  to  the  labor  vote  in  support  of 
labor  measures  in  the  council.  In  other  places  like  Liverpool  the 
large  brewery  interests  enter  the  field  as  capitalists,  and  elect  their 
partners  to  the  council.  In  American  cities  the  saloon  interest  is 
an  important  wheel  of  the  political  machine.  In  any  case  their  can- 
didates are  elected,  not  *or  the  sake  of  efficient  government,  but 
really  in  order  to  weaken  the  government  that  endeavors  to  regulate 
their  private  business. 

Much  less  evidence  was  found  of  real  estate  dealers  and  specu- 
lators in  British  cities  than  in  American  cities.  Owing  perhaps 
to  the  system  of  landed  property  and  the  jealousy  of  the  landed  in- 
terest, real  estate  speculation  is  very  quiet  and  subdued  in  British 
cities.  The  councils,  outside  London,  are  almost  exclusively  of  the 
commercial,  manufacturing,  profession  and  labor  classes.  The 
purchase  and  sale  of  sites  either  by  a  council  or  by  a  company,  and 
the  selection  of  routes,  are  so  jealously  controlled  by  the  landed 
interest  intrenched  in  the  House  of  Lords,  that  land  speculation 
in  connection  with  public  utilities  does  not  greatly  influence  the 
local  councils. 

In  all  of  the  cities  visited  in  Great  Britain,  except  Glasgow  and 
London,  it  was  found  that  national  political  parties  managed  the 
municipal  elections.  The  exception  in  Glasgow  is  mainly  owing 
to  the  fact  that  there  the  Liberal  party  is  so  overwhelming  that  the 
Tories  have  no  chance.  Even  the  committees  that  manage  the 
municipal  undertakings  are  selected  so  that  the  dominant  party  of 
the  council  has  majorities.  In  two  places,  however,  Leicester  and 
Birmingham,  an  eminent  financier  of  the  opposite  party  is  elected 
to  the  head  of  the  finance  committee.  Party  politics  in  itself  is 
not  a  barrier  to  successful  municipal  operation. 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  97 

The  part  taken  by  the  working  classes  in  the  election  of  coun- 
cillors in  England  is  divided  into  two  stages.  The  few  labor  mem- 
bers elected  ten  to  twenty  years  ago  came  in  as  members  of  the 
Liberal  party  and  they  retain  that  allegiance.  They  are  first  Lib- 
erals and  secondarily  trade  unionists.  The  second  stage  is  that 
of  the  Labor  party  of  the  past  five  years,  in  which  the  trade  unions 
have  joined  with  one  wing  of  the  socialists.28  The  object  of  the 
Labor  party  has  been  that  of  getting  legislation  to  protect  the 
funds  of  trade  unions  from  attachment  by  the  courts.  It  has, 
however,  organized  local  branches  for  municipal  elections.  Much 
the  largest  number  of  candidates  put  up  by  the  Labor  party  are 
the  salaried  officials  of  the  unions,  who,  if  elected,  retain  their  union 
position.  They  are  not  usually  "organizers'-'  or  "agitators/'  for  the 
British  unions  do  not  have  such  salaried  positions,  but  they  are  the 
official  secretaries  who  are  at  the  same  time  the  experienced  nego- 
tiators with  employers.  A  much  smaller  class  of  so-called  "labor 
councillors"  are  the  socialists,  who  are  generally  small  merchants, 
employers  or  professional  men,  with  a  program  more  radical  than 
that  of  the  trade-unionists.  Finally,  there  were  found  a  half  dozen 
political  adventurers  of  the  "fakir"  type,  not  nominated  by  the 
Labor  party,  but  taken  up  by  the  Liberals,  Tories  or  public-house 
interests  to  draw  off  the  vote  of  the  Labor  party.  In  general,  while 
some  criticism  was  heard  from  aged  councillors  or  from  old-line 
trade-union  Liberals,  to  the  effect  that  the  new  labor  movement 
was  deteriorating  the  character  of  the  councils,  yet  the  criticism 
was  confined  to  the  lack  of  business  and  financial  capacity,  to  the 
inability  to  take  "broad"  views  of  municipal  business,  and  to  the 
efforts  to  find  municipal  work  for  applicants.  With  the  exception 
of  the  half  dozen  adventurers,  no  criticism  is  made  of  their  integ- 
rity or  earnestness  and  sincerity  of  purpose  in  urging  the  cause  they 
advocate ;  while  in  the  case  of  the  trade-union  officials  there  was  a 
general  agreement  on  the  part  of  all  classes  that  they  brought  a 
kind  of  intelligence  and  a  point  of  view  that  was  needed  in  the 
council's  deliberations  as  a  large  employer  of  labor. 

ORGANIZATIONS    OF    MUNICIPAL   EMPLOYEES. 

The  increase  in  municipal  ownership  in  Great  Britain  has,  of 
course,  brought  an  increase  in  the  number  of  municipal  employees, 
and  this  has  caused  apprehension  in  certain  quarters.  Generally 
the  chief  officers  of  the  municipal  enterprises  take  the  ground  that 
they  and  other  employees  should  not  vote  in  municipal  elections, 
and  they  openly  set  that  example  to  their  subordinates.29  Some  of 
them  go  even  so  far  as  to  advocate  the  disfranchisement  of  munici- 
pal employees  in  municipal  elections.  This  has  also  been  advocated 
by  some  of  the  councillors.  However,  such  a  proposition  is  no 
longer  seriously  considered.  If  the  vote  of  municipal  employees  is 
a  menace  the  remedy  must  be  looked  for  in  directions  other  than 
disfranchisement.  It  goes  without  proof  that  such  a  remedy  is 
needed,30  for  municipal  employees  sooner  or  later  cast  their  votes  for 
candidates  who  promise  or  have  secured  a  betterment  of  their  con- 


98  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

dition,  regardless  of  its  effect  on  the  enterprise  as  a  whole.  Omit- 
ting disfranchisement,  there  are  two  directions  in  which  such  a  rem- 
edy can  be  found,  first  a  limit  to  be  set  beyond  which  municipaliza- 
tion  shall  not  go,  and  second,  the  attitude  of  the  public  and  espe- 
cially of  the  workmen  in  private  employment. 

Although  there  are  doctrinaire  and  socialistic  elements  that 
set  no  limit  to  public  ownership,  the  overwhelming  sentiment  of 
those  now  in  control  of  the  municipal  councils  places  a  limit  at  the 
point  already  reached  by  cities  like  Glasgow,  Manchester,  and 
Leicester.  With  this  practical  agreement  there  is  no  prospect  that 
the  number  of  municipal  employees  will  be  materially  increased 
beyond  the  proportion  reached  in.  Glasgow,  where  their  voting 
strength  is  possibly  one-sixteenth  of  the  total.  The  total  number 
employed  by  the  London  County  Council  and  the  London  Borough 
Councils  is  about  one-fourteenth  of  the  registered  voters.31 

The  natural  tendency  of  municipal  employees  to  better  their 
own  condition  by  use  of  their  political  strength  is  seen  in  the 
growth  of  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association.  This  is  a  spuri- 
ous form  of  trade  unionism  which  has  sprung  up  with  the  growth 
of  municipalization,  and  nothing  of  its  kind  has  been  found  among 
American  unions.  It  has  gained  affiliation  with  other  unions  in 
the  Trades  Union  Congress  and  in  local  Trades  Councils.  Its 
platform  is  simple  enough :  to  prohibit  strikes,  to  oppose  council- 
lors at  the  polls  if  they  stand  in  the  way  of  granting  its  demands, 
and  to  call  on  other  unions  for  help  in  the  elections.  Its  demands 
are  in  excess  of  anything  that  other  unions  have  been  able  to  se- 
cure from  private  employers  or  even  from  municipal  corporations. 
It  invites  into  membership  all  employees  of  municipalities,  and 
since  they  are  nearly  all  eligible  to  other  unions,  evidently  the  aim 
of  this  organization  is  to  separate  a  privileged  class  of  workmen, 
and  to  do  this  through  the  political  power  of  those  whom  they 
abandon.  It  weakens  other  unions  while  building  on  their  support. 
With  even  a  minimum  of  intelligence  in  the  other  unions  such  a 
parasitic  union  would  be  repudiated.  Such  has  been  the  fate  of 
the  Municipal  Employees'  Association.  As  long  as  its  member- 
ship was  small  the  consequences  of  its  policy  were  not  observed, 
and  its  demands  received  the  uncritical  assent  of  others  in  the 
general  approval  of  all  efforts  to  raise  wages.  But  with  its  rapid 
growth  during  the  past  two  years,  the  unions  of  unskilled  workmen, 
who  suffered  first  from  its  competition  for  members,  brought  their 
protest  to  the  Trades  Union  Congress  in  1906,  and  that  body,  after 
careful  deliberation,  repudiated  the  Municipal  Employees'  Asso- 
ciation and  all  similar  organizations  of  public  employees  by  the 
practically  unanimous  vote  of  1,196,000  to  42,000.  "  It  is  thus 
promptly  settled,  before  this  organization  had  reached  15,000 
members  throughout  Great  Britain,  that  the  trade  union  world  i=> 
clearly  opposed,  both  in  sentiment  and  self-interest,  to  the  creation 
of  a  privileged  class  of  municipal  employees.  As  far  as  the  reg- 
ular trade  unions  are  concerned  the  principle  of  trade-union  wages, 
rising  and  falling  in  municipal  employment  the  same  as  in  private 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  99 

employment,  is  accepted  in  its  full  significance.  Without  the  sup- 
port of  the  regular  unions  the  strength  of  the  Municipal  Employees' 
Association  has  disappeared.  It  was  a  temporary  phase  of  the 
rapid  increase  of  municipal  ownership.32 

Our  investigations  have  shown  that  the  proper  method  of  deal- 
ing with  employees  is  the  most  difficult  and  critical  problem  of 
municipal  ownership.  The  appointment,  promotion  and  dismissal 
of  employees  and  the  wages  to  be  paid  offer  peculiar  opportunities 
for  political  and  personal  influence  inconsistent  with  efficiency. 
Civil  service  reform,  so-called,  has  been  found  in  its  highest  per- 
fection in  the  city  of  Chicago,  but  it  is  evident  by  comparison  with, 
a  less  perfect  device  ;n  Syracuse  that  its  integrity  depends  on  the 
political  influences  thfi'  'ontrol  the  mayor  and  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments. If  the  head  o.  he  department  is  independent  of  politics, 
as  shown  in  Cleveland,  Detroit  and  South  Norwalk,  the  civil  ser- 
vice commission  is  not  needed.33  The  Chicago  system  is  a  temporary 
bulwark  built  around  the  departments  until  such  time  as  the  chief 
officer  himself  can  also  be  protected  from  political  selection.  This 
is  the  case  in  British  cities  where  the  idea  of  a  civil  service  com- 
mission is  unknown.34  But  even  there,  especially  in  the  Sheffield 
tramways,  appointments  have  been  made  on  the  recommendation 
of  councillors.  The  experience  of  Glasgow  is  instructive.  Fifteen 
}rears  ago  the  practice  of  hiring  employees  on  the  recommendation 
of  councillors  was  universal  in  all  departments.  But  with  the 
growth  of  municipal  ownership  it  has  almost  disappeared.85  This 
is  partly  because  several  thorough  investigations  of  alleged  favor- 
itism have  been  made  by  the  council ;  partly  because  public  spirited 
business  men  have  exposed  the  evil,  have  made  it  clear  to  the  voters 
#nd  have  been  elected  to  the  council  on  the  issue  of  driving  out 
favoritism;  and  partly  because  the  adoption  of  the  minimum  wage 
policy  of  the  labor  members  has  stopped  the  practice  of  councillors' 
unloading  and  pensioning  their  old  employees  on  the  municipal 
pay-roll.3  The  only  remnant  of  the  practice  discovered  after  a 
thorough  investigation  in  Glasgow  was  in  the  unskilled  work  of 
the  tramways,  and  this  came  about  through  the  effort  of  that  de- 
partment during  the  industrial  depression  of  1905-6  to  aid  the 
city  government  in  finding  work  for  the  unemployed.  The  press- 
ure for  employment  during  the  depression  was  enormous  and  all 
managers  were  besieged  by  hundreds  of  applicants.  A  card  of 
introduction  from  a  councillor  secures  at  least  the  privilege  of 
filling  out  an  application  blank,  and  this  amounts  to  a  limited  pref- 
erence over  those  who  do  not  have  such  cards,  but  the  managers  fol- 
low up  the  application  by  a  thorough  examination  before  making 
appointments.  In  other  places  all  charges  of  favoritism  were  care- 
fully investigated  and  they  were  found  to  be  baseless,  except  in  the 
case  of  motormen  and  conductors  at  Sheffield.  These  are  selected 
on  the  recommendation  of  councillors.  The  Manchester  Tramway 
Committee,  at  the  beginning  of  its  organization,  recognizing  the 
possible  evil,  adopted  a  rule  instructing  their  manager  not  only 
not  to  pay  attention  to  letters  from  councillors  but  to  give  prefer- 
ence to  applicants  who  have  no  such  recommendations. 


100  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

Our  investigations  have  shown  that  the  strongest  safeguard 
for  a  manager  against  the  pressure  of  outside  recommendations  is 
the  recognition  of  organized  labor  within  his  department."  Wher- 
ever we  have  found  a  class  of  employees  organized  and  dealt  with 
as  such  through  their  representatives  we  have  found  those  positions 
exempt  from  politics.  This  follows  from  the  nature  of  labor  or- 
ganization which  cannot  survive  if  individuals  are  given  preference 
on  political,  religious,  personal  or  any  other  grounds  than  the  char- 
acter of  the  work  they  do.  Even  in  the  politically  honeycombed 
municipal  undertaking  of  Allegheny,  the  union  of  electrical  work- 
ers stopped  the  practice  of  paying  assessments  by  its  members  for 
political  campaigns.  The  success  of  the  civil  service  system  of 
Chicago  is  owing  more  than  anything  else  to  the  fact  that  organ- 
ized labor  has  one  of  the  three  members  on  each  examining  board. 
The  manager  of  the  Manchester  Tramways  ascribes  his  freedom 
from  interference  by  individual  councillors  to  his  recognition  of 
the  union  that  holds  90  per  cent,  of  his  motormen  and  conductors.38 

PRIVATE    COMPANIES    AND    MUNICIPAL    COUNCILS. 

The  foregoing  is  a  review  of  several  interests  which  have  been 
discovered  as  tending  to  weaken  the  efficiency  and  integrity  of 
municipalities  in  the  operation  or  regulation  of  monopolies,  to- 
gether with  the  factors  that  tend  to  correct  these  evil  tendencies. 
In  inquiring  into  the  part  played  by  all  of  them/9  including  saloon- 
keepers, real  estate  speculators,  party  politicians,  and  municipal 
employees,  the  most  impressive  fact  in  Great  Britain  is  the  ab- 
sence of  any  political  "machine"  which  could  bring  them  together 
and  line  them  up  under  a  centralized  control.  Whatever  corrupt- 
ing or  incapacitating  tendencies  there  may  be  in  these  several  in-, 
terests  that  come  into  conflict  with  good  administration,  each  worKs 
by  itself  and  there  is  no  permanent  interest  or  class  of  manip- 
ulators which  thrives  by  marshaling  them  together  in  a  perpetual 
onslaught  and  undermining  of  the  city  government.  Public  spir- 
ited and  independent  citizens  are  not  compelled  to  enter  into  bar- 
gains nor  to  make  promises  to  a  political  organization,  which  would 
disgust  them  with  a  position  on  the  Town  Council.  This  absence 
of  a  powerful  machine  is  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  there  are  no 
great  financial  bargains  at  stake,  such  as  municipal  contracts  or 
franchises,  whose  owners  have  a  direct  interest  in  breaking  down 
city  government.  None  of  the  menacing  factors  above  mentioned 
is  large  enough,  and  all  of  them  combined  cannot  gain  enough,  to 
warrant  them  in  making  large  contributions  to  an  expensive  or- 
ganization for  the  control  of  elections  and  appointments.  The 
brewery  interest  is  practically  the  only  interest  of  financial  impor- 
tance whose  profits  can  be  menaced  by  acts  of  the  Council,  but  the 
menace  to  it  is  based  on  moral  and  not  financial  grounds.  In  re- 
sisting this  menace  it  does  not  directly  attack  the  business  integ- 
rity of  the  Council,  but,  more  important,  there  is  no  opportunity 
for  it  to  make  an  alliance  with  contractors  and  franchise  specula- 
tors who  could  increase  their  profits  and  make  sharper  bargains 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  101 

with  the  city  if  the  councillors  were  weak  or  corrupt,  or  under  the 
control  of  a  machine  which  they  must  support.  The  absence  of 
powerful  financial  opponents  of  good  government  leaves  the  way 
open  for  business  men  to  enter  the  councils  and  to  attack  abuses 
or  defend  the  interests  of  the  city  without  risking  their  private 
business  or  antagonizing  their  social  circle.  The  eminent  bankers, 
financiers,  and  merchants  who  serve  the  cities  as  aldermen  on  the 
finance  committees  are  free  to  do  so  because  neither  they  nor  their 
clients  or  business  associates  are  interested  in  stocks  which  might 
be  depreciated  if  they  helped  the  city  to  drive  a  good  bargain. 
These  men  are  often  the  directors  in  large  manufacturing,  railway 
and  other  private  companies.  Councillors  and  aldermen  on  the  gas, 
water,  electricity  and  tramways  committees  are  even  stockholders 
and  directors  in  private  gas  and  water  companies  of  other  towns. 
It  would  be  impossible  for  such  men  to  act  conscientiously  on  the 
great  board  of  municipal  directors,  and  to  give  the  town  the  same 
kind  of  service  as  they  give  to  their  private  companies,  if  they  or 
their  business  associates  were  interested  in  companies  which  had 
business  relations  with  the  Council.  Neither  could  the  medium  and 
smaller  business  men  and  employers  afford  to  accept  positions  on 
the  councils  and  take  the  independent  stand  they  do,  if  the  bankers 
and  large  business  men  on  whom  they  depend  for  credits  and  sales 
were  interested  in  the  stocks  of  franchise  companies.40  With  these 
great  antagonistic  interests  out  of  the  way,  the  business  men  of  the 
town  find,  not  only  that  their  private  business  is  not  menaced,  but 
that  the  conditions  of  all  private  business  are  greatly  improved,  if 
they  lend  their  abilities  to  the  improvement  of  municipal  business. 
The  time  which  they  take  from  their  private  affairs  is  often  not 
even  a  business  sacrifice.  The  honor  and  distinction  of  public 
service  on  the  council  is  really  an  advertising  asset  in  their  private 
business.  It  would  be  a  liability  if  they  were  called  upon  to  an- 
tagonize large  financial  interests. 

I  do  not  hold  that  the  contrast  in  American  cities  gives  evi- 
dence that  the  private  corporations  which  we  have  investigated 
have  taken  the  initiative  in  corrupting  and  weakening  the  municipal 
councils.  The  initiative  has  just  as  often  come  from  corrupt  offi- 
cials who  "hold  up"  the  Corporations.  The  real  question  is  not,  Who 
is  to  blame  ?  or,  Is  it  blackmail  or  is  it  bribery  ?  but  the  real  ques- 
tion is,  What  is  the  situation  that  compels  officials,  campaign  com- 
mittees and  corporations  to  resort  to  blackmail  -and  bribery? 
Plainly  by  comparison  of  American  and  British  cities  the  answer 
is  found  in  the  enormous  profits  at  stake  on  municipal  elections.41 

It  is  the  absence  of  a  political  machine  and  its  financial  con- 
tributions that  also  makes  possible  the  election  in  British  cities  of 
remarkable  groups  of  Labor  councillors.  With  but  few  exceptions 
the  labor  members  are  representative  of  the  best  elements  of  the 
trade  unions.  Although  they  lack  the  financial  experience  of  busi- 
ness men  they  contribute  a  valuable  knowledge  of  labor  conditions 
on  which  successful  management  of  municipal  undertakings  de- 
pends. Men  of  their  integrity  and  earnestness  have  the  opportunity 


102  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

to  come  forward  because  the  trade  unions  are  not  undermined  nor 
their  leaders  bribed  by  the  paid  agents  of  a  political  machine.42  And 
the  financial  interests  that  would  profit  by  the  election  of  weak  or 
dishonest  labor  candidates  are  not  powerful  enough  to  subsidize  the 
astute  agents  needed  by  the  machine  for  the  purpose. 

A  contrast  with  this  situation  appears  in  two  of  the  places 
visited  where  private  companies  operate  public  utilities.  The 
municipal  council  of  Newcastle-on-Tyne  is  decidedly  inferior  in 
quality  and  ability  to  others,43  and  two  of  the  leading  financiers  on 
the  council  declared  that  their  only  reason  for  remaining  in  the 
position  is  the  election  which  the  council  gives  them  as  corporation 
representatives  on  the  Tyne  Improvement  Commission.  The  pres- 
ence of  private  gas,  electricity  and  water  companies,  with  their  rep- 
resentatives in  the  council,  prevents  the  leading  business  men  from 
interesting  themselves  in  the  success  of  the  municipal  government, 
while  an  equivocal  class  of  labor  agitators  takes  advantage  of  the 
situation  to  get  elected  to  the  council.  Sheffield,  also,  with  its  influ- 
ential gas  company,  is  the  only  town  visited  where  the  employees 
in  the  tramway  and  street  departments  are  appointed  through  the 
influence  of  councillors.  In  that  town  there  is  a  peculiar  induce- 
ment for  the  eminent  business  men  in  charge  of  the  gas  company 
to  look  with  approval  on  the  election  of  inferior  councillors,  because 
the  council  elects  three  of  its  members  as  directors  of  the  company. 
The  strength  of  the  company  is  seen  in  the  incompetency  of  these 
municipal  directors,  who  are  kept  in  ignorance  of  essential  details 
in  its  affairs.  With  councillors  of  this  inferior  type  and  with  the 
indifference  of  business  men  to  the  management  of  municipal  af- 
fairs, the  result  is  seen  in  the  absence  of  any  protest  against  prac- 
tices which  are  undermining  the  municipal  undertakings. 

Certain  effects  of  the  municipal  ownership  movement  in  Great 
Britain  on  the  private  companies  are  evident.  The  Sheffield  Com- 
pany, under  the  far-seeing  management  of  Sir  Frederick  Mappin, 
has  directed  its  policy  for  many  years  with  the  distinct  purpose  of 
meeting  the  arguments  for  municipal  ownership.  To  avoid  agita- 
tion it  has  refrained  from  going  to  Parliament  for  permission  to 
increase  its  capital  stock.  Consequently  it  has  distributed  its  large 
surplus  profit  in  the  form  of  reduced  prices  for  gas  and  betterments 
to  its  plant.  Most  instructive  of  all  is  the  attitude  of  the  companies 
toward  their  employees.  With  the  sentiment  of  municipal  owner- 
ship ready  to. explode,44  the  companies  cannot  afford  to  risk  a  strike. 
The  Newcastle  gas  company  has  met  this  situation  by  a  willing 
recognition  of  the  gas  workers'  union  and  by  a  resort  to  arbitration 
through  which  wages  have  been  materially  raised.  The  South 
Metropolitan  Company  has  developed  its  copartnership  scheme  with 
astonishing  shrewdness  and  careful  attention  to  details,  so  that 
every  disaffected  workman  is  silent  or  dismissed.  The  Sheffield 
Company,  although  its  president  had  openly  attacked  and  wrecked 
trade  unions  in  his  private  business,  contented  itself  with  graduall}* 
undermining  the  gas  workers'  union,  through  the  payment  of  wages 
and  bonuses  superior  to  those  paid  by  other  private  employers  of  the 


LABOR    AND.   POLITICS.  103 

district,  and  even  in  the  case  of  unskilled  labor,  superior  to  those 
paid  by  the  corporation  of  Sheffield. 

TRADE    UNIONS    AND    WAGES. 

The  influence  of  wage- earners  through  their  unions  upon  the 
conditions  of  municipal  employment  in  the  United  States  has  been 
complicated  through  the  presence  and  activity  of  practical  politi- 
cians. In  the  municipal  enterprises  investigated,  except  South  Nor- 
walk  and  Eichmond,  the  eight-hour  day  has  been  established  for  the 
past  ten  or  fifteen  years  for  all  employees,  whereas  in  the  private 
companies  the  hours  are  longer  or  have  more  recently  been  reduced 
for  a  portion,  but  not  all,  of  their  employees  in  the  more  skilled 
branches  of  work.  This  advantage  in  municipal  undertakings  has 
been  brought  about,  not  by  a  definite  labor  party,  but  by  the  influ- 
ence of  wage-earners  as  voters  upon  the  municipal  officials.45 

A  curious  contrast,  however,  presents  itself  in  the  wages  paid 
by  contractors  on  municipal  work.  While  the  larger  cities  in  their 
own  employment  reduced  the  hours  several  years  before  similar 
reductions  were  made  by  British  municipalities,  yet,  unlike  the  Brit- 
ish municipalities,  provision  was  not  made  requiring  contractors  on 
municipal  works  to  observe  the  hours  and  wages  paid  by  the  munici- 
palities themselves.  It  has  only  been  within  the  past  five  or  six 
years  that  a  definite  movement  was  undertaken  by  the  wage-earning 
element  to  extend  these  provisions  to  contractors,  and  this,  on  ac- 
count of  adverse  decisions  of  the  courts,  led  to  the  adoption  in  New 
York  of  a  constitutional  amendment  in  1905  stipulating  that  the 
prevailing  rate  of  wages  should  be  paid  by  contractors  on  the  work 
of  the  State  or  its  sub-divisions.  This  clause  has  recently  been 
adopted  by  the  city  of  Chicago.  The  hand  of  the  politician  is  seen 
in  the  omission  of  the  contractors  from  the  requirement  respecting 
wages  and  hours,  since  by  this  device  he  was  able  to  win  both  the 
wage-earners  and  the  contractors  to  his  support.  But  with  the  more 
extensive  organization  of  wage-earners  and  their  independence  of 
the  politicians,  the  contractors  are  placed  on  the  same  basis  as  the 
municipality. 

In  only  one  case  investigated  in  the  United  States  is  there  a 
formal  trade  agreement  between  the  union  and  a  municipal  depart- 
ment,*8 namely,  that  of  the  electricity  department  of  Chicago,  but 
since  permanent  appointments  in  that  and  other  departments  of 
Chicago  are  controlled  by  the  Civil  Service  Commission,  the  effect 
of  this  agreement  is  to  control  only  the  temporary  or  sixty-day 
appointments.  The  unions,  however,  are  recognized  by  the  Civil 
Service  Commission  to  the  extent  that  an  officer  of  the  union  con- 
cerned is  appointed  as  one  of  the  three  members  of  the  examining 
board  which  passes  upon  applicants  for  municipal  positions.  The 
other  two  members  are  employers  or  technical  experts  selected  by 
the  commission  outside  th3  municipal  service.  The  consequence  of 
this  arrangement  is  that  the  unions  are  satisfied  that  the  Civil 
Service  law  is  honestly  administered,  and  at  the  same  time  the  non- 
union workmen  are  protected  against  discrimination.  In  Great 


104  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

Britain  there  are  two  undertakings,  Birmingham  gas  and  Man- 
chester tramways,  which  have  trade  agreements  with  the  unions, 
and  in  all  other  places  the  same  result  is  reached  by  the  provision 
requiring  the  payment  of  trade-union  rates  of  wages.47 

The  municipal  undertakings  in  both  countries  are  necessarily 
"open  shop,"  in  the  sense  that  employment  is  open  both  to  union 
and  non-union  men.  In  the  case  of  the  more  skilled  trades  this 
usually  results  in  the  employment  of  union  men,  depending  partly 
on  the  attitude  of  the  manager.*8  This  attitude  is  favorable  to  the 
unions  in  all  of  the  British  municipalities  except  Liverpool  and 
is  favorable  in  the  American  cities  of  Cleveland,  Detroit  and  Chi- 
cago. In  these  places  the  managers  consult  the  union  officers  in 
arranging  wages,  hours,  and  conditions  of  work.  The  three  Amer- 
ican places  mentioned  are  those  where  the  political  machine,  sup- 
ported by  the  contractors  and  franchise  corporations,  has  been  elim- 
inated from  the  control  of  the  city  government  by  a  popular  revolt 
against  the  corporations.  But  in  Allegheny,  Syracuse,  Wheeling 
and  Indianapolis,49  where  a  combination  of  politicians  and  franchise 
corporations  is  in  control  of  the  municipal  government,  the  attitude 
is  distinctly  hostile  to  the  unions,  and  appointments  and  promotions 
are  made  with  reference  to  the  political  adherence  of  the  employees. 
The  exception  to  this  statement  is  found  in  the  Allegheny  electric 
undertaking  to  the  extent  that  the  Electrical  Workers'  Union  has 
organized  the  linemen.  In  this  case  appointments  are  not  made  on 
political  grounds  and  the  linemen  do  not  pay  the  assessments  re- 
quired of  other  employees.  Of  the  private  companies  investigated 
in  Great  Britain,  all  of  them  except  one  were  hostile  to  union  labor. 
The  exception  is  the  Newcastle  gas,  which  has  had  open-shop  agree- 
ments with  a  gas  workers7  union  during  seventeen  years.  In  the 
United  States  all  of  the  private  companies  are  hostile  to  union 
labor.50  Most  of  the  companies  in  both  countries  protested  that  they 
were  not  hostile,  while  only  one  asserted  positively  that  it  was,  but 
the  acts  and  policies  of  all,  as  shown  by  our  investigations,  demon- 
strate their  hostility.  The  situation  respecting  each  branch  of  or- 
ganized labor  in  both  classes  of  undertakings  is  briefly  as  follows : 

The  Electrical  Workers'  Union  throughout  the  United  States 
numbers  about  21,000  members.  Its  principal  strength  is  found 
among  the  wiremen,  who  are  associated  with  other  skilled  trades  in 
the  construction  of  buildings,  among  shop  men  in  manufacturing 
establishments,  and  among  linemen  employed  by  telephone  com- 
panies. The  organization  has  a  much  smaller  proportion  of  the 
employees  of  electric  light  and  street  railway  companies.  It  has  no 
organization  among  private  companies  coming  under  our  investiga- 
tion. It  has  an  organization  in  the  Detroit  Electric  Company, 
which  we  used  for  comparison  with  the  Detroit  municipal  undertak- 
ing. The  presence  of  the  municipal  enterprise,  with  its  eight-hour 
day  and  its  recognition  of  the  Electrical  Workers'  Union  during  the 
past  eight  years,  has  served  as  a  standard  by  which  this  private 
company  has  endeavored  to  guide  itself  and  to  put  itself  in  as  favor- 
able position  before  the  public  as  the  municipal  undertaking.  The 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  105 

company  indeed  has  created  a  semi-pension  position  for  the  presi- 
dent of^the  Electrical  Workers'  local  union,  giving  him  leave  of 
absence  to  use  his  influence  among  aldermen  and  the  working  people 
of  the  town  at  times  when  the  council  has  before  it  an  ordinance 
for  the  regulation  or  reduction  of  rates  or  services.  The  situation 
is  different  in  Chicago,  where  a  local  union  of  the  same  organiza- 
tion has  been  defeated  in  strikes  by  the  electricity  companies  and 
where  the  union  is  able  to  maintain  its  scale  of  wages  and  secure 
employment  with  those  companies  only  in  the  branches  of  work 
connected  with  the  building  trades  where  it  has  the  support  of  other 
trade  unions  in  the  town.  Even  in  that  exceptional  circumstance, 
the  union  has  been  compelled  to  allow  its  men  to  work  at  15  cents 
a  day  less  than  the  scale  paid  by  the  municipality  and  by  other  fair 
employers.  The  organization  is  not  represented  in  the  municipal 
enterprise  of  South  Norwalk,  although  the  local  union  has  officially 
declared  that  undertaking  to  be  a  "fair  shop"  and  permits  its  mem- 
bers to  work  alongside  municipal  employees  who  are  not  members. 

The  situation  of  the  Electrical  Workers'  Union  in  Great  Britain 
is  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  the  corresponding  organization  in 
this  country.  It,  however,  has  been  handicapped  by  the  fact  that  the 
powerful  association  of  Amalgamated  Engineers  (machinists)  has 
always  claimed  electrical  workers  as  coming  under  its  jurisdiction. 
Four  other  unions  also  claim  jurisdiction  over  the  electrical  workers. 
The  Amalgamated  Engineers  are  interested  more  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  fitters,  turners  and  blacksmiths  than  in  the  organization  of 
electrical  workers,  pattern  makers  and  other  smaller  elements 
claimed  by  them.  It  has  only  been  in  the  past  year  that  the  Amal- 
gamated Engineers  recognized  the  Electrical  Trade  Union  and  con- 
sented to  their  admission  on  equal  terms  in  the  Engineering  and 
Shipbuilding  Federation.  One  consequence  of  the  conflict  with 
other  unions  is  that  the  Electrical  Workers'  Union51  in  that  country 
has  not  been  aggressive  ind  has  limited  itself  practically  to  munici- 
pal employees  and  the  employees  of  contractors  on  municipal  work. 
It  has  only  recently  begun  organizing  the  shop  men  in  manufactur- 
ing establishments,  but  has  no  men  with  any  of  the  private  com- 
panies investigated. 

The  stationary  firemen's  organization  includes  about  13,000 
members  throughout  the  United  States,52  of  whom  4,000  are  in  New 
York  City.  This  organization  is  not  strongly  represented  in  any 
of  the  places  investigated  except  Chicago  and  Cleveland,  where  it 
includes  all  of  the  firemen  in  the  municipal  electric  and  water  works. 
The  union  was  defeated  in  a  strike  by  the  Commonwealth  and  Edi- 
son companies  of  Chicago  and  has  no  representation  now  in  their 
employment.  It  has  members  in  the  municipal  undertaking  of  De- 
troit, but  not  in  Syracuse,  Eichmond  or  Wheeling,  nor  in  any  of  the 
private  undertakings.  This  union  claims  jurisdiction  over  stokers 
in  gas  works,  but  none  of  its  members  were  found  either  in  the 
municipal  or  the  private  gas  undertakings. 

The  national  union  of  stationary  engineers,53  with  its  17,500 
members,  has  members  in  the  municipal  undertakings  of  Cleveland, 


106  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

Detroit,  Allegheny,  Wheeling,  and  Chicago,  but  not  in  Richmond 
nor  in  any  of  the  private  undertakings. 

The  firemen  and  engineers  of  Great  Britain  are  claimed  by  a 
half  dozen  organizations,  all  of  them  weak  and  conflicting  and  none 
of  them  represented  in  any  of  the  establishments  visited.  Where 
the  gas  workers'  union  is  recognized  it  includes  the  firemen. 

There  is  one  organization,  that  of  street  railway  employees,, 
for  which  comparisons  between  private  and  public  employment  can- 
not be  made  in  the  United  States,  since  there  are  no  municipal 
undertakings  of  that  character.  The  British  organization,  which 
nominally  includes  teamsters  and  drivers  as  well  as  motormen  and 
conductors,  is  practically  confined  to  the  latter,  and  for  the  last  six 
years  has  increased  its  membership  solely  among  motormen  and 
conductors.  Its  membership  consists  of  9,500  in  municipal  em- 
ployment and  1,500  in  private  employment,54  a  ratio  of  one-half  of 
the  motormen  and  conductors  employed  by  all  municipalities  and 
one-third  of  those  employed  by  all  companies.  The  three  private 
companies  investigated,  namely  London,  Norwich  and  Dublin,  have 
taken  a  decided  stand  against  the  organization,  have  discharged 
those  of  its  employees  who  became  members  and  have  required  bond& 
or  deposits  which  are  forfeited  if  the  men  quit  without  giving  one 
or  two  weeks'  notice.  Two  of  the  municipalities,  London  and  Man- 
chester, are  organized  in  this  association  to  the  extent  of  nine- 
tenths  of  their  employees,  while  in  two  other  establishments  investi- 
gated, Liverpool  and  Glasgow,  the  municipalities  have  established 
benefit  associations,  and  in  Liverpool  the  union  was  disrupted  by 
embezzlement  on  the  part  of  its  officers.  The  wages  are  so  much 
in  advance  of  what  these  employees  received  from  the  former  pri- 
vate companies  that  the  union  does  not  appear  to  offer  them  any 
particular  advantages  if  they  should  join  it.  In  the  United  States,, 
where  the  street  railway  employees  are  all  in  the  service  of  private 
companies,  the  membership  of  the  union  paying  dues  throughout  the 
country  was  36,000  in  1902  out  of  a  total  number  of  employees- 
eligible  to  membership  in  that  year  of  134,000.55  This  was  2?  per 
cent,  of  the  employees  of  those  companies,  or  something  less  than 
the  proportion  organized  in  the  private  companies  of  Great  Britain, 
and  about  half  of  the  proportion  which  the  British  union  has  of  the 
municipal  employees. 

In  none  of  the  American  enterprises  investigated  were  the  com- 
mon laborers  organized.  In  the  municipal  undertakings  they  are 
paid  higher  wages  and  given  shorter  hours  than  in  the  case  of  private 
employees  of  the  same  locality.  They  are  also  in  all  cases  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  and  residents  of  the  locality.  The  common  labor 
of  the  private  companies,  except  in  Indianapolis  and  the  Southern 
cities,  where  they  are  colored,  is  composed  largely  of  immigrants 
and  no  attention  is  paid  as  to  whether  they  have  secured  citizenship 
papers  or  not. 

MINIMUM    WAGES. 

In  the  matter  of  wages  and  hours  the  principal  effect  of  munici- 
pal ownership  is  seen  in  J  he  unskilled  and  unorganized  labor  in  both 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  107 

countries,  in  that  of  street  railway  employees  in  Great  Britain  and 
in  that  of  gas  workers  and  electric  workers  in  the  United  States. 

The  policy  of  all  of  the  British  municipalities  is  to  place  the 
minimum  wages  of  common  labor  at  the  level  paid  by  the  best 
private  employers  for  similar  work.66  This  is  about  15  per  cent,  to 
40  per  cent,  higher  than  other  private  wages  for  the  same  class  of 
labor  in  the  same  locality.  The  greatest  difference,  that  of  Leicester, 
was  the  result  of  arbitration,  brought  about  through  the  organiza- 
tion of  common  labor  in  that  town.  In  this  case  those  private  em- 
ployers who  recognized  the  union  paid  the  same  wages  as  the  munici- 
pality. In  one  locality,  Sheffield,  the  minimum  wage  paid  by  the 
gas  company  is  higher  than  the  minimum  paid  by  the  municipality 
and  other  private  employers,  and  the  gas  company  at  Newcastle  pays 
its  organized  common  labor  the  same  minimum  as  the  municipality, 
but  all  of  the  electric  and  tramway  companies  pay  less  for  common 
labor  doing  the  same  kind  of  work  than  the  municipalities  in  which 
they  are  located.57 

In  the  United  States  the  minimum  paid  for  common  labor  by 
the  private  companies  is,  in  all  cases,  except  Atlanta,  lower  than  that 
of  the  municipality,  and  the  minimum  paid  for  common  labor  by 
municipal  undertakings  is  higher  than  that  of  private  companies 
of  the  same  locality.58  The  correspondence  runs  as  follows :  Syracuse, 
municipal  $1.50  for  eight  hours,  private  $1.50  for  ten  hours;  De- 
troit, municipal  $1.75  for  eight  hours,  private  $1.80  for  nine  hours; 
Allegheny,  municipal  $2.75  for  eight  hours,  private  $1.75  for  ten 
hours;  Wheeling,  municipal  $1.85  for  eight  and  nine  hours,  private 
$1.85  for  ten  hours;  Cleveland,  municipal  $1.76  for  eight  hours, 
private  $1.75  for  ten  hours;  Indianapolis,  municipal  $1.60  for  eight 
hours,  private  $1.50  for  ten  hours;  Chicago,  municipal  $2.00  for 
eight  hours,  private  $1.75  for  ten  hours;  New  Haven,  municipal 
$1.50  for  eight  hours,  private  $1.50  for  nine  hours;  Richmond, 
municipal  $2.00  for  nine  hours,  private  $1.20  for  nine  hours;  At- 
lanta, municipal  and  private  $1.00  for  ten  hours. 

These  are  the  minimum  rates  and  not  the  average  rates  nor 
the  highest  rates  paid  for  unskilled  and  usually  unorganized  labor.89 
In  this  respect  the  municipalities,  both  in  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  have  adopted  the  trade-union  principle  of  the  mini- 
mum wage  for  that  class  of  labor  which  ordinarily  has  no  union, 
and  all  of  the  familiar  arguments  for  and  against  the  theory  of  the 
minimum  wage  as  applied  to  trade  unions  can  be  brought  forward 
as  applied  to  the  municipalities.  Against  the  minimum  wage  theory 
is  the  criticism  that  it  shuts  out  from  employment  the  old  men  who 
are  not  worth  the  minimum  wage,  and  my  colleague,  though  speak- 
ing ostensibly  for  the  trade  unions,  nevertheless  by  condemning  this 
result  in  municipal  employment,  condemns  the  fundamental  princi- 
ple of  trade-unionism.  The  private  companies  investigated,  which 
pay  less  than  the  minimum,  of  course,  justify  it  on  the  ground  that 
the  Italians,  negroes,  and  others  employed  are  not  worth  the  mini- 
mum, but  the  trade  unionist  usually  tells  them  that  by  paying  the 
minimum  they  would  attract  better  workmen.  So  far  as  our  in- 


108  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

veetigations  have  gone,  they  show  that  in  municipal  employment 
this  has  been  the  case.  Since  the  adoption  of  the  minimum  wage 
policy,60  enforced  sometimes  by  civil  service  rules,  the  quality,  char- 
acter, physique,  and  efficiency  of  the  common  labor  employed  by 
municipalities  has  been  greatly  improved,  and  municipal  employ- 
ment has  ceased  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  old-age  pension  for  laborers 
worn  out  in  private  employment.  This  is  a  hardship  to  individuals 
to  the  same  extent  that  trade-unionism  is  a  hardship  to  individuals. 
But  from  the  standpoint  of  the  municipality  it  is  a  gain,  because 
more  competent  laborers  are  employed,  and  municipal  employment 
is  clearly  distinguished  from  municipal  charity.  The  aged  and 
inefficient  laborers,  discharged  from  private  employment,  and  un- 
able to  secure  municipal  employment,  must,  of  course,  be  supported 
from  the  public  treasury,  and  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  the  move- 
ment for  old-age  pensions  as  a  substitute  for  the  poorhouse  in  Great 
Britain  has  been  strengthened  by  the  minimum  wage  policy  of  the 
past  ten  years  which  has  relieved  municipal  employment  of  its  poor- 
house  features. 

In  all  of  the  occupations  where  organized  labor  was  found,  the 
policy  of  all  of  the  municipalities  investigated,  except  South  Nor- 
walk,  is  that  of  paying  the  trade-union  rate.  This  is  also,  of  course, 
a  minimum  rate  and  the  conditions  are  the  same  as  those  governing 
private  employers  of  the  locality  who  recognize  the  union.  A  few 
cases  of  individuals  were  found  where  the  city  was  paying  indi- 
viduals less  than  the  unions,  but  these  were  cases  in  which  the  union 
had  granted  a  permit  to  work  below  the  scale  on  account  of  old  age, 
or  were  cases  over  which  a  dispute  as  to  the  character  of  the  work 
was  in  process  of  adjustment,  or  where,  as  in  Chicago,  wages  in  pri- 
vate employment  had  been  advanced  after  the  municipal  budget  had 
been  voted  and  the  latter  could  not  under  the  law  be  changed  until 
the  next  fiscal  year.  We  have  not  found  any  instance,  except  that  of 
the  Municipal  Employees'  Association  in  Great  Britain,  above  men- 
tioned, where  the  unions  have  demanded  higher  minimum  wages  of 
the  municipality  than  those  paid  by  union  employers.  Individuals, 
both  in  municipal  and  private  undertakings,  get  higher  wages  than 
the  union  minimum. 

Outside  the  ranks  of  unskilled  labor  in  Great  Britain  the  prin- 
cipal difference  between  wages  in  municipal  and  private  undertak- 
ings is  found  in  the  case  of  the  motormen  and  conductors  on  tram- 
ways. This  has  been  brought  about  by  a  reduction  in  the  hours  of 
labor  in.  municipal  employment,  so  that  in  two  municipal  under- 
takings, Glasgow  and  Manchester,  the  hours  have  been  reduced  to 
54  per  week,  and  in  two  others,  the  Liverpool  and  London  County 
Council,  to  60  per  week,  while  in  the  three  private  undertakings  the 
hours  are  70  per  week.81  Since  the  wages  have  not  been  decreased 
the  result  is  seen  in  the  rate  of  pay  per  hour.  Taking  the  London 
County  Council  Tramways  and  the  London  United  Tramways, 
where  comparisons  can  fairly  be  made,  since  both  are  in  the  same 
town,  the  wages  for  motormen  are  4.2  per  cent,  and  for  conductors 
30  per  cent,  higher  on  the  municipal  than  on  the  private  system. 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  100 

Outside  London,  considering  the  local  levels  of  wages,  the  municipal 
undertakings  pay  higher  wages  than  the  private  undertakings.  This 
difference  is  not  owing  to  the  change  from  horse  to  electrical  trac- 
tion, since  the  wages  on  the  municipal  undertakings  were  advanced 
when  the  municipality  secured  possession,  which  in  the  case  of  Glas- 
gow was  six  years  before  electrical  traction  was  adopted.  The  pri- 
vate companies,  although  paying  less  than  the  municipalities,  have 
also  advanced  their  rates  of  pay  with  the  introduction  of  electrical 
traction.  The  same  is  true  of  the  traction  companies  in  the  United 
States,  although  our  investigations  have  not  included  a  survey  of 
these  companies,  and  we  are  unable  to  make62  a  statistical  com- 
parison.* 

In  the  case  of  gas  workers  employed  by  the  municipalities  and 
private  companies  in  Great  Britain  it  has  been  found  that,  with  the 
exception  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Company,  there  is  not  much 
difference  between  the  wages  paid  in  the  two  classes  of  undertakings. 
The  differences  observed  in  this  occupation  grow  out  of  the  amount 
of  work  required  of  the  stokers.  On  account  of  the  severity  of  the 
work  it  is  the'  practice  both  of  the  private  companies  and  the  munici- 

*The  practice  of  my  colleague  in  going  outside  the  matters  actually 
investigated  by  us  and  introducing  criticisms  that  we  have  not  in- 
vestigated may  be  judged  by  his  quotation  from  a  socialist  critic  of 
the  Glasgow  tramways  —  a  class  of  critics  whom  in  general  he  loses  no 
opportunity  to  discredit.  Since  these  criticisms  have  been  introduced 
after  our  report  was  handed  in,  I  have  had  no  opportunity  of  "running 
them  down,"  as  was  thoroughly  done  in  other  cases,  and  can  only  quote 
from  a  reply  to  my  inquiries  received  from  the  General  Manager  under 
date  of  May  20,  1907.  He  says:  "In  regard  to  the  first  point,  we  never 
ask  an  applicant  for  a  situation  for  a  written  'character';  we  simply 
wish  to  know  from  him  what  situations  he  has  been  in  during  the  past 
five  years,  and  the  names  of  his  employers  during  that  period.  On 
leaving  the  service  he  is  informed  that  any  communications  regarding 
him  will  be  promptly  attended  to." 

"The  question  of  conductors  paying  the  full  value  for  lost  tickets 
is  fully  dealt  with  in  the  report  sent  you."  The  report  referred  to  is 
one  made  under  date  of  February  20,  1907,  by  the  General  Manager  to 
the  Tramways  Committee,  in  answering  a  petition  of  the  Municipal 
Employees'  Association,  and  includes  the  following  paragraph:  "The 
conductors  desire  that  when  any  of  the  tickets  entrusted  to  them  go 
astray,  they  should  only  be  held  responsible  for  the  cost  of  printing 
the  lost  tickets  and  not  for  their  face  value.  I  cannot  find  that  any 
conductor  during  the  past  year  has  been  charged  the  face  value  of  lost 
tickets  who  has  come  forward  with  an  explanation.  We  must,  however 
be  very  strict  in  the  matter  of  lost  tickets  because  these  tickets  are 
worth  their  face  value  both  to  the  department  and  to  the  conductors 
They  must  therefore  be  regarded  practically  as  cash.  Each  case  is 
considered  on  its  merits,  and  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  conductors 
have  nothing  to  complain  of  in  the  way  they  are  treated  in  regard  to 
lost  tickets." 

The  General  Manager  continues:    "I  never  heard  it  suggested  that 
mour  service  men  are  supposed  to  report  each  other  for  neglect  of 


™g^_to_the_  wearing  of  uniform,  we  would  not  allow  a  man 


^ 

" 

to  take  up  duty  unless  he  were  properly  dressed" 

offence  »  PUnching  °f  a  ticket  in  the  wronS  Place  is  a  very  serious 


110  NATIONAL    CIVIC    FEDERATION. 

pal  undertakings  in  the. United  States  to  require  the  stokers  to  work 
actually  only  one-half  of  the  number  of  hours  for  which  they  are 
paid,  the  other  half  being  available  for  recreation.  This  is  true  also 
in  three  of  the  municipal  undertakings  in  Great  Britain,  while  in 
the  fourth,  Glasgow,  the  stokers  work  five  hours  out  of  the  eight 
instead  of  four.  In  this  respect  Glasgow  is  on  the  same  basis  with 
the  most  favorable  of  the  private  companies,  Newcastle,  where  on 
account  of  the  presence  of  a  strong  labor  organization,  the  stokers 
also  are  on  the  basis  of  five  hours'  work  for  eight  hours7  pay.  In 
the  other  two  private  companies,  which  have  succeeded  in  destroy- 
ing the  labor  organizations63  that  formerly  existed,  the  amount  of 
work  required  of  the  men  has  been  increased  to  a  greater  degree  than 
the  increase  of  wages.  So  severe  was  this  hardship  on  the  employees 
of  the  South  Metropolitan  Company  that  in  two  of  the  stations  they 
voted  to  accept  the  proposition  of  the  company  to  return  to  the 
twelve-hour  day  and  to  forego  the  advantages  of  the  eight-hour  day, 
which  they  had  secured  through  their  union  in  1889.  By  increasing 
slightly  the  total  amount  of  work  in  the  twelve-hour  shift  they  in- 
creased their  total  daily  wages,  but  the  cost  of  labor  to  the  company 
is  the  same  on  the  twelve-hour  basis  as  it  is  in  the  other  stations  on 
the  eight-hour  basis.  Measuring  their  wages,  however,  by  the  hour, 
the  men  on  the  twelve-hour  basis  receive  the  lowest  rates  of  pay  of 
all  the  private  and  municipal  undertakings.  This  twelve-hour  sys- 
tem, resulting  from  the  smashing  of  the  union  and  the  overwork  of 
the  employees,  is  approved  in  some  quarters  as  a  "genuine  example 
of  co-operation." 

At  the  other  extreme  the  least  amount  of  work  required  of 
stokers  is  in  the  municipal  undertaking  at  Manchester,  and  there 
the  reduction  in  the  amount  of  work  has  been  criticised  as  indi- 
cating a  detrimental  influence  of  trade  unions  upon  the  municipal 
undertaking.  A  question  of  this  kind  must  be  decided  according 
to  the  opinions  of  the  investigators.  Looking  at  the  severity  of  the 
work  it  would  be  unwarranted  to  say  that  the  stokers  in  the  Man- 
chester municipal  undertaking  are  doing  a  smaller  amount  of  work 
than  should  be  fairly  required  of  them.  An  important  consequence 
of  the  policy  of  the  Manchester  municipality  in  its  effort  to  avoid 
overworking  the  stokers  is  seen  in  its  effort  to  greatly  improve  the 
equipment  of  the  plant  in  order  to  reduce  the  amount  of  labor  re- 
quired, the  net  result  being  that  the  labor  cost  in  Manchester  is  not 
greater  than  in  other  places. 

In  the  United  States  the  gas  workers  are  on  the  twelve-hour 
day  at  Eichmond  and  Atlanta,  but  in  the  municipal  plant  at  Wheel- 
ing all  employees  have  the  eight-hour  day,  while  with  the  private 
company  at  Philadelphia  the  shift  men  in  the  retort  house  were 
placed  on  the  eight-hour  day  when  the  company  took  possession. 
They  had  worked  twelve  hours  under  municipal  ownership.  The 
wages  paid  by  the  Richmond  municipal  plant,  all  of  whose  em- 
ployees are  whites,  are  90  per  cent,  to  100  per  cent,  higher  than  the 
wages  paid  to  negroes  wao  do  similar  work  in  the  Atlanta  private 
undertaking,  and  the  wages  paid  to  white  mechanics  and  appren- 
tices at  Richmond  are  30  per  cent,  to  120  per  cent,  higher  than 
those  paid  to  the  corresponding  white  employees  by  the  Atlanta 


LABOR    AND    POLITICS.  Ill 

company.64    In  one  occupation,  that  of  the  bricklayer,  the  wages  in 
the  two  places  are  the  same. 

In  the  electric  industries  in  Great  Britain,  outside  of  employ- 
ment of  unskilled  labor,  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  material 
difference  in  the  rates  paid  by  the  municipalities  and  the  private 
companies  taken  as  a  whole.  It  was  not  possible  to  make  an  exact 
comparison  on  account  of  the  differences  in  classification  and 
the  wide  range  of  wages,  depending  partly  upon  the  size  of  the 
undertaking.65  Such  differences  as  were  found  to  exist  between 
municipal  and  private  undertakings  might  be  explained  upon  the 
basis  of  the  differences  in  the  level  of  wages  in  the  several  localities. 

In  the  United  States  in  all  cases,  except  South  Norwalk  and 
Detroit,  the  wages  paid  by  the  municipal  electric  undertakings  are 
materially  higher  than  these  paid  by  the  private  undertakings  of 
the  same  localities.  The  widest  difference  is  found  in  Allegheny 
and  in  Chicago.  The  only  positions  in  which  the  private  electrical 
companies  of  Chicago  pay  as  high  wages  for  similar  work  as  the 
municipal  undertaking  is  that  of  a  small  number  of  their  wiremen, 
who  work  alongside  the  other  organized  building  trades  of  the  city."3 
Their  other  wiremen  doing  the  same  work  get  less  pay. 

In  the  matter  of  "welfare  work/'  or  provision  for  the  comfort, 
cleanliness  and  recreation  of  employees,  the  best  conditions  were 
found  in  the  works  of  the  Commonwealth  Electric  Company  at 
Chicago,67  the  municipal  water  works  at  Cleveland,  the  Philadelphia 
gas  works,  the  municipal  gas  at  Leicester,  municipal  trams  at  Glas- 
gow and  Liverpool  and  South  Metropolitan  gas  at  London.  The 
worst  conditions  were  at  Wheeling  and  Richmond  municipal  gas 
and  Sheffield  private  gas.  In  general,  the  buildings  and  works  con- 
structed during  the  past  four  or  five  years,  both  in  private  and  mu- 
nicipal undertakings,  show  a  great  improvement  over  the  older  build- 
ings and  works,  in  the  provision  for  baths,  lavatories,  lunch  and 
cooking  rooms,  recreation  rooms  and  grounds-  Taking  the  entire 
list  of  properties  visited,  the  best  under  one  form  of  ownership  i15 
equalled  by  the  best  under  the  other  form,  and  so  on  down  to  the 
worst.  The  superior  character  of  the  municipal  undertakings  over 
private  undertakings  in  Great  Britain  is  partly  owing  to  their  more 
recent  construction,  and  the  converse  is  true  in  the  United  States. 

In  Great  Britain,68  but  not  in  the  United  States,  were  found 
systems  of  insurance,  thrift  funds,  sick,  death  and  accident  benefits, 
both  in  municipal  and  private  undertakings.  The  most  extensi/e 
and  elaborate  of  these  is  that  of  the  South  Metropolitan  Company, 
connected  with  its  system  of  profit  sharing  and  compulsory  invest- 
ment of  profits  in  the  company's  stocks.  This  system  is  ingeniously 
contrived  to  destroy  the  gas  workers'  union  by  subjecting  its  em- 
ployees to  the  conspiracy  l?ws,69  and  to  enable  the  company  to  "con- 
tract out"  from  the  Workmen's  Compensation  laws.  The  munici- 
pal gas  works  of  Glasgow  has  copied  the  system  so  far  as  it  relates 
to  profit  sharing  and  conspiracy,  but  not  to  workmen's  compensa- 
tion. All  other  municipal  and  private  establishments  pay  accident 
benefits  as  required  by  this  national  legislation. 


ANALYSIS 

OF   INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'  "LABOR  AND  POLITICS." 
By  J.  W.  SULLIVAN. 

See  reference  numbers  in  the  review  referred  to,  page  88. 

1.  The  "sentences"  "picked  out"  here  referred  to  (quoted  in 
the  begining  of  my  review,  page  60),  are  paragraphs  indited  by 
Investigator  Commons,  after  I  had  demonstrated  to  him  their  truth. 
Summaries  of  a  series  of  inquiries,  they  conceded  that  in  Great 
Britain  municipalization  had  not  improved  wages  and  conditions 
in  general  for  employees  in  the  skilled  occupations  organized  as 
trade  unions,  but  had  slightly  done  so  for  the  unskilled  workers  of 
a  grade  higher  than  the  average  in  the  labor  market,  aided  by  the 
political  pressure  coming  from  the  Municipal  Employees'  Associa- 
tion and  kindred  political  organizations  and  the  social  bodies  de- 
manding the  "living  wage."  By  this  "picking  out"  of  passages  I 
gave  a  satisfactory  reply  to  one  of  the  first  questions  repeatedly 
asked  me  in  America  among  workingmen:  "Have  municipalized 
gas  works,  street  railways,  etc.,  really  done  so  much  in  England  for 
the  hands  as  is  talked  about  in  America  by  municipal  ownership 
advocates?"  If  my  colleague,  in  the  comprehensive  statements  of 
these  paragraphs,  gave  away  a  large  part  of  his  case,  diminishing 
thenceforth  the  interest  of  American  wage-earners  in  his  municipal 
cornucopia,  he  should  have  foreseen  the  result.  And  if  he  himself 
proceeded  to  show  that  "municipal  employees  sooner  or  later  cast 
their  votes  for  candidates  who  promise  or  who  have  secured  a  better- 
ment of  their  conditions"  (page  97),  he  merely  fortified  my  argu- 
ment that  so-called  trade  unions  of  municipal  employees  are  mainly 
political,  and  hence  repugnant  to  the  established  economic  and  non- 
political  principles  of  unionism.  These  sweeping  admissions  by 
Investigator  Commons  given  at  the  outset,  I  disposed  of  what  to 
many  inquirers  is  a  good  part  of  the  municipal  ownership  question. 
It  was  indeed  impossible  for  him  to  pick  out  from  our  joint  report 
any  passages  equally  damaging  to  private  operation.  Municipal 
ownership,  after  fair  trial,  had,  as  its  most  striking  outcome  in  re- 
gard to  labor,  substituted  a  narrow  field  of  employment  in  a  bu- 
reaucracy where  changes  in  conditions  were  mostly  subject  to  politi- 
cal methods,  for  the  broad  field  in  free  industry  open  to  all  grades 
of  labor,  where  conditions  might  be  improved  for  all  alike  through 
the  collective  self-help  of  trade  unionism  and  the  individual  self- 
help  of  personal  efficiency. 

2.  A  claim  that  withers  under  examination.     To  write  that 
sentence  while  totally  ignoring  the  lessons  he  learned  at  the  Phila- 
delphia gas  works,  to  cite  but  one  example,  required  effrontery. 

3.  The  principle  prevalent  in  the  wonderful  development  of 
the  United  States  has  been  that  it  is  essential  to  the  rate  of  prog- 
ress to  have  work  done  even  with  waste.     The  ruling  idea  in  Great 
Britain  has  been  official  supervision  to  the  point  of  suppression  in 
order  to  protect  vested  rights  or,  in  the  case  of  cities,  to  hold  back 
"public  utility"  developments  for  municipal  operation.     The  com- 
bined results  of  municipal  ownership  and  governmental  interfer- 
ence in  Great  Britain  with  the  tramway  and  electrical  industries 


ANALYSIS  OF  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'   REVIEW.       US 

have  rendered  the  kingdom  one  of  the  most  backward  countries  in 
those  regards  in  the  world.  In  both  industries  it  is  far  behind 
Italy.  If  the  ratio  of  the  supply  in  the  United  Kingdom  were 
equal  to  that  in  the  United  States,  a  competent  observer  made  out 
two  years  ago  that  there  would  be  1,256  places  supplied  with  electric 
lighting  instead  of  its  457 ;  14,000  miles  of  electric  railway  instead 
of  its  3,040,  and  50,000  persons  employed  in  the  telephone  industry 
instead  of  its  13,000. 

4.  Until  within  a  few  years  American  municipalities,  unheed- 
ful  of  the  exact  cost,  were  inviting  capital  to  come  and  take  fran- 
chises and  help  develop.     And  before  and  since,  the  energies  of  the 
people,  press,  and  prosecution  have  been  expended  in  exposing  the 
blunders  of  the  inefficient,  and  the  jobbery,  sinecurisrn,  and  malad- 
ministration of  the  rascally,  officeholders. 

5.  "The  purest  of  indefinite  nonsense,"  was  the  comment  on 
this  passage  by  a  gas  company  President  who  last  year  travelled  in 
Great  Britain  to  observe  for  himself. 

6.  Not  correct.     The  American  companies  were  not  asked 
for  this  permission.     The  only  American  management  that  refused 
access  to  our  engineers  and  accountants  was  that  of  the  Richmond 
municipal  gas.     Already,  by  the  law,  in  Great  Britain,  public  ser- 
vice companies  furnish  to  the  government  Board  of  Trade  sucli 
statistics.     In  the  United  States  similar  information  given  to  pri- 
vate investigation  might  be  used  in  the  stock  market. 

7.  A  complicated  question.      Municipal  ownership  agitators 
and  political  "sandbaggers"  have  held  this  threat  over  the  British 
companies.     On  the  other  hand,  municipalities  have  had  strikes. 

8.  None  of  the  anti-municipal  members  of  our  Commission 
opposed  a  system  of  uniform  public  accounting.     The  British  com- 
panies, like  the  municipalities,  must  make  returns  to  the  govern- 
ment.    This  has  nothing  to  do  in  heading  off  strikes. 

9.  One  set  of  vices  may  in  cases  have  to  an  extent  been  avoid- 
ed.    But  such  vices  play  no  essential  part  in  private  operation,  since 
in  many  other  cases  they  have  been  eliminated,  or  had,  because  of 
just  municipal  control,  never  developed.     But  municipal  ownership 
has  invariably  engendered  its  own  peculiar  and  ineffaceable  vicesy 
dangerous  to  society  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  employees. 

Investigator  Commons'  opening  paragraph  is  a  model  of  ran- 
dom inaccuracies  and  misty  conclusions. 

10.  It  would  have  been  well  for  his  cause  had  he  been  able  to 
exalt  municipal  ownership  as  much  after  this  investigaton  as  was 
his  habit  before  I  went  with  him  to  witness  its  marvels  and  we 
were  shown  its  shams. 

11.  For  each  municipality  to  have   "full  power  and  home 
rule"  to  change  from  private  to  public  ownership  in  gas,  transit, 
water,  and  electricity  would  in  many  cases  be  but  a  violation  of 
home  rule.     The  water  supply  of  a  dozen  municipalities  in  Union. 
Hudson  and  Essex  Counties  in  New  Jersey  is  in  a  single  system. 
So  to  an  extent  are  the  gas,  trolley,  and  electricity  supplies  in  these 
and  other  counties.     To  permit  a  single  municipality  to  secede  at 
will  from  such  a  system  once  formed  would  be  to  set  at  naught  a 
contract  with  the  other  municipalities  and  open  the  way  for  local 
political   machines  to   blackmail   the  trunk   undertakings   already 
giving  the  supplies.     Again,  London's  boroughs  have  learned  a  sad 


114  THE   CIVIC   FEDERATION   LABOR   REPORT. 

lesson  in  so-called  home  rule  in  electricity.  A  single  central  elec- 
tric system  for  the  Metropolitan  district  could  cut  the  price  by  a 
good  percentage,  but  what  would  then  become  of  the  borough  s'ys- 
tems?  By  true  home  rule  all  the  people  directly  concerned,  and 
not  a  fraction  of  them,  settle  their  common  public  questions  under 
principles  established  by  the  State.  The  English  Socialists  have 
abandoned  municipal  home  rule  for  tramways,  water,  and  elec- 
tricity, and  now  call  for  "municipalization  by  provinces/"' 

12.  Aye ;  government  is  simply  a  question  of  politics,  whether 
in  Russia  or  Switzerland.     In  this  paragraph  Investigator  Com- 
mons confuses  unlike  ideas  in  one  term,  a  mental  defect  of  which 
he  is  often  the  victim.     But  in  the  last  clause — "we  only  get  a 
different  kind  of  politics" — he  nearly  sees  through  his  fog.     Munic- 
ipal ownership  gives  us  politics  perpetual,  in  every  aspect,  at  each 
step,  from  the  initiation  of  a  service  to  its  separate  extensions  and 
down  to  the  last  point  in  the  details  of  its  administration — a  long 
chain  of  politics,  no  stronger  than  its  weakest  link.     Through  opera- 
tion by  contract,  a  well  governed  municipality  may  have  politics 
focnssed  on  one  transaction  and  thenceforth  attenuated  to  the  van- 
ishing point.    The  communities  so  feeble  in  public  virtue  that  they 
cannot  protect  themselves  by  stipulating  a  fair  franchise  and  an 
honest  supervision  of  service  would  under  municipal  operation  stand 
little  chance  of  "getting  and  keeping  the  right  kind  of  men  to  man- 
age and  operate  the  municipal  undertakings." 

13.  Competition  regulates  all  honestly  awarded  contract  work 
for  municipalities,  even  in  the  common  so-called  monopolistic  sup- 
plies requiring  forms  of  exclusive  possession  of  the  streets. 

14.  Not  correct.     This  entire  passage  is  disproven  by  the  de- 
nial from  these  associations  that  any  such  "indorsement"  was  ever 
made.     See  page  9. 

15.  With  my  review  in  his  hands  ten  weeks  before  the  Twenty- 
One  met,  June  10,  1907,  my  colleague  had  had  abundant  time  for 
conciliatory  representations  when  he  so   reluctantly   penned  this 
painful  explanation.     Needless  and  untruthful,  it  betrays  his  judg- 
ment overcome  by  resentment  at  reading  my  digest  of  our  evidence 
against  municipal  ownership.     "When  unable  to  answer,  abuse  your 
opponent !" 

16.  Not  correct.     This  astonishing  falsehood  is  fully  exposed 
pages  3  to  8. 

17.  After  he  reads  the  numerous  corrections  in  the  essentials 
of  his  testimony  I  have  put  on  record  against  him  in  these  pages, 
and  sees  how  many  qualified  men  have  come  forward  to  disprove 
his  assertions,  he  will  have  reason  to  see  the  futility  of  parading  his 
positiveness  and  rectitude. 

18.  This  paragraph  takes  a  place  in  the  same  category  as  his 
description  of  the  Sheffield  and  Newcastle  Town  Councils.       In 
neither  case  did  his  allegations  relate  to  a  matter  of  prescribed  in- 
vestigation by  our  Commission.     He  was  careful  to  carry  on  this 
"thoroughness  of  investigation"  without  my  knowledge  and  con- 
trary to  instructions. 

19.  Then  to  persist  in  not  seeing  that  the  cleansing  of  our 
municipal  politics  first  is  indispensable  to  any  success  in  municipal 
operation  is  wilful  blindness.    He  was  not  commissioned  to  go  forth 
seeking  all  the  remote  facts  that  in  his  judgment  or  at  his  needs 


ANALYSIS  OF  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'   REVIEW.       115 

would  help  his  argument,  but  he  was  working  under  instructions  to 
investigate  certain  undertakings  with  me. 

20.  "It  was  found."     By  whom  ?     By  himself,  from  unnamed 
sources  at  Syracuse  and  Allegheny.     As  to  Chicago  and  Philadel- 
phia, see  statements  on  the  point,  Part  II,  Vol.  I,  pages  142  and 
520,  and  note  the  flimsy  bases  for  these  serious  charges. 

21.  In  this  paragraph,  whether  right  or  not  as  to  political  ap- 
pointments in  the  two  forms  of  undertakings,  he  admits  the  under- 
lying causes  of  dry  rot  in  the  trade  unions  composed  whol!}*"  or  in 
part  of  municipal  employees.     It  is  a  paragraph  to  be  studied  by 
trade  unionists. 

22.  The  civil  service  of  Mayor  Dunne's  administration  does 
not  stand  so  high  in  public  estimation  in  1908  as  it  did  in  munic- 
ipal ownership  circles  in  1906. 

23.  "Are  found."     By  whom?     Where  is  the  evidence?     In 
this  paragraph  and  the  one  ensuing  he  is  sole  witness  and  self-ap- 
pointed judge.     Under  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Commission  his 
proceeding  was  irregular.     His  assertion  as  to  the  "accident"  of  his 
personal  acquaintance  is  a  bit  of  playfulness,  meant  for  the  credu- 
lous.    The  last  seven  lines  of  the  second  paragraph  were  slipped 
in  after  his  review  had  been  sent  to  the  Committee  of  Twenty-One. 

24.  "Definite  information  was  obtained."     By  whom?   From 
whom  ?     What  can  be  done  to  hold  a  supposedly  scientific  observer 
down  to  well-authenticated  fact  when  he  indulges  in  a  series  of 
loose  allegations  such  as  these? 

25.  Not  correct.     I  attended,  while  on  my  tours  for  this  Com- 
mission, meetings  of  four  Councils — those  of  Eichmond,  Chicago, 
Glasgow,  and  London — and  made  on  the  spot  inquiries  as  to  the 
standing  of  the  men  who  took  the  floor.     I  do  not  know  that  my 
colleague  attended  any  such  meetings.       Surface  indications  did 
not  rate  the  two  American  Councils  low.     The  members  of  the 
Eichmond  Council  were  in  appearance  of  a  fine  type  of  Southern 
citizenship,  orderly  in  debate  and  business-like  in  dispatching  their 
work.     There  was  no  symptom  of  partisanship,  buncombe,  or  "re- 
form" hoodwinking.    The  Chicago  Council's  striking  features  were 
democratic  informality,  directness  and  speediness,  with  a  good-hu- 
mored snuffing  out  of  political  play.     The  Glasgow  Council's  session 
was  enlivened,  as  I  have  said,  by  charges  and  counter-charges  from 
heated  partisans,  talk  for  the  galleries,  and  tit-for-tat  taunts  and 
gibes.     Notable  elements,  as  pointed  out  to  me,  were  the  known  de- 
fenders of  the  liquor  interests,  one  or  two  non-working  Laborites, 
several  red-flag  Socialists,  many  sanguine  municipalists,  and  not  a 
few  small  politician  dummies.   The  London  County  Council's  several 
sessions  I  attended  were  largely  occupied  with  disputed  questions 
regarding  the  financial  outcome  of  acquired  or  projected  lodging 
houses,  tramways,  steamboats,  etc.     The  Moderates  foretold  their 
day  that  was  coming  and  in  parliamentary  language  plainly  doubted 
the  accuracy  of  the  Progressives'  reports.     In  the  many  talks  over 
the  character  of  Councilmen  which  I  heard  in  various  cities,  it 
seemed  human     nature  to  exhibit  generosity  in  the  judgment  of 
fellow-partisans  and  hardness  of  heart  toward  opponents.  Of  course, 
the  true  character  of  a  Councilman  can  only  be  revealed  in  a  series 
of  votes  that  tests  his  integrity,  intelligence,  consistency  and  devo- 
tion to  the  community  above  self  or  party. 


116  THE   CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

26.  A  statement  little  likely  to  promote  immediate  munici- 
palization  in  America.       Have  the  municipal  ownership  leaders 
given  this  admission  its  just  weight? 

27.  Not  correct.     In  Scotland,  by  Councils;  in  England,  by 
licensing  magistrates,  except  for  places  of  amusement. 

28.  Not  correct.     All  the  Labor  Party  men  do  not  call  them- 
selves Socialists. 

29.  Not  correct.     Fai   from  it.     Mr.  Dalrymple,  tramway*. 
Glasgow,  is  the  solitary  well-known  instance,  according  to  the  in- 
formation given  me  by  Englishmen  to  whom  I  showed  this  state- 
ment in  April,  1908. 

30.  Another  admission  fatal  in  the  American  mind  to  munic- 
ipalization.     On  considering  it,  workmen  in  private  employment 
might  consequently  assume  an  attitude  of  opposition  to  municipal 
ownership. 

31.  The  swinging  from  one  party  to  another,  or  from  one 
candidate  to  another,  of  one  vote  in  twenty — 50  in  1,000 — would 
have  affected  the  result  in  enough  Presidential  elections  to  com- 
pletely change  the  history  of  the  United  States;  a  transfer  of  one 
vote  in  fourteen  would  at  some  time  have  altered  important  local 
policies  in  every  subdivision  of  every  State.     But  municipal  and 
government  employees  always  vote ;  they  live  in  and  on  politics,  and 
bring  out  their  friends  on  election  day.     The  twenty  to  forty  per 
cent  of  registered  voters  not  voting  are  mostly  those  having  no  per- 
sonal stake  in  the  result.     One-fourteenth  of  the  registered  voters 
may  represent  one-eighth  of  the  actual  voters,  and  with  men  they 
influence  one-sixth. 

32.  Not  correct.     For  the  errors  in  this  paragraph  see  page 
11.     Evidence  is  not  wholly  lacking  in  the  United  States  that  cer- 
tain local  unions  are  run  considerably  for  the  benefit  of  their  mem- 
bers in  municipal  or  government  employ. 

33.  No  better  arrangement  precedent  to  any  necessary  form 
of  municipal  ownership,  such  as  the  water  supply  or  markets,  has 
come  under  the  Commission's  observation  than  having  the  head 
of  a  department  wholly  independent  of  politics,  where  possible ;  but 
as  to  whether  this  system  is  firmly  established  in  Cleveland  one  will 
be  able  to  form  a  sound  judgment  only  after  several  changes  of  ad- 
ministration;  in  Detroit,  the  headship  of  the  electricity  depart- 
ment is  difficult  to  locate — in  the  Superintendent,   Secretary  or 
Commission. 

34.  Sheffield  tramways  were  not  investigated.       Investigator 
Commons  once  gave  me  this  information  as  coming  from  a  street 
car  conductor  with  whom  he  had  a  casual  chat  while  on  his  car ! 

35.  Unsupported  statements.     Testimony  from  members  of 
the  Labor  and  Socialist  parties,  the  Municipal  Employees'  Associa- 
tion, the  Citizens'  Union,  and  the  heads  of  the  municipalized  de- 
partments themselves,  some  of  which  I  have  elsewhere  given,  is  to 
the  effect  that  Councillors  continually  "give  lines"  to  workmen  seek- 
ing employment.     Will  a  municipal  undertaking  manager  steadily 
ignore  the  recommendations  given  their  henchmen  by  the  Council- 
lors who  hold  his  own  situation  in  their  hands? 

36.  "Thorough  investigation"  of  a  day  or  two.   This  oft-used 
phrase  loses  its  force  when  the  reader  knows  that  we  had  not  the 
time  in  our  investigation  to  go  exhaustively  into  such  points,  which 
might  well  take  a  special  commission  months. 


ANALYSIS  OF  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'   REVIEW.       117 

37.  This  is  not  "organized  labor"  in  the  trade  union  sense, 
but  organizations  of  municpal  employees  for  mutual  benefit  and 
political  ends.     The  Secretaries  inevitably  are  tempted  to  become 
vote  bargainers  with  Councillors  and  municipal  managers. 

38.  "Influence"  in  these  circumstances  passes  from  the  Coun- 
cillors to  the  organization,  i.  e.,  the  Secretary,  who,  wielding  the 
boycott  vote  club,  gets  work  for  its  members,  sees  that  they  are  not 
easity  discharged,  and  with  other  secretaries  advocates  more  munic- 
ipalization. 

39.  Some  of  these  interests,  in  powerful  form,  are  usually 
with  the  machine  in  America,  ready  to  assist  it  in  swallowing  new 
municipal  undertakings.     In  London,  the  Socialists  have  a  model 
machine;  and  few  seats  in  the  County  Council  are  held  indepen- 
dently of  a  party  organization.     In  the  situation  in  London  to-day 
big  companies  fighting  for  their  existence — a  very  large  stake — do 
what  they  can  to  prevent  Socialist  and  Progressive  majorities  from 
holding  power  and  virtually  confiscating  their  property,  either  by 
compulsory  sale  or  burdensome  taxation.     In  boroughs  in  the  East 
End  of  London,  where  local  taxation  has  reached  8  and  even  12 
shillings  (and  the  Socialist  cry  is  "Rates,  twenty  shillings  to  the 
pound !")  manufacturing  is  heavily  handicapped  in  competition  with 
enterprises  in  the  provinces  near  London  where  rates  are  but  2 
shillings.     London  capitalists  have  hence  been  forced  into  forming 
a  political  machine  to  protect  their  industries,  and  in  the  recent 
elections  their  workmen  have  stood  by  them.     In  his  remarks  on 
the  brewery  interest,  Thorough  Investigator  Commons  finds  himself 
still  floundering  in  his  ridiculous  blunder  of  making  Councils  in 
England  (the  London  County  Council,  for  example)  license  the  sa- 
loons.    They  have  nothing  to  do  with  licensing,  except  places  of  en-" 
i-ertainment,  such  as  music  halls,  which  have  but  an  infinitesimal 
part  of  the  retail  beer  business. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  cram  more  errors  of  fact  and  comment 
into  an  equal  number  of  lines  than  has  Investigator  Commons  in 
this  description  of  what  Americans  call  "local  politics"  in  Great 
Britain.  He  is  seeing  London  through  Milwaukee  eyes. 

40.  How  is  it,  then,  that  wageworkers  are  invariably  found 
ready  to  become  active  in  trade  unions,  thus  risking  their  bread  and 
butter?     One  good  reason  for  the  absence  of  large  business  men 
from  British  Town  Councils  is  that  they  cannot  spare  two  to  four 
days  a  week  following  the  details  of  municipalized  undertakings. 
But  the  small  business  man,  leaving  his  wife  or  a  clerk  in  charge 
of  the  shop,  has  the  amateur's  liking  for  running  gas  works  and 
street  cars,  with  public  funds,   and  acting  prominent  citizen  at 
public  dinners  or  on  excursions  to  other  towns,  or  even  to  the  Con- 
tinent, expenses  paid. 

41.  There  are  no  "enormous  profits"  for  either  political  party 
in  Philadelphia  in  the  gas  works  of  that  city  to-day,  nor  can  there 
be  for  twenty  years.     In  the  hands  of  an  operating  company,  on 
terms  satisfactory  to  the  community,  these  works  do  not  form  one 
of  the  prizes  in  politics  that  they  did  when  owned  and  operated  by 
the  city.     Taking  these  works  as  an  example,  American  municipal- 
ities could  abolish  the  situation  depicted  by  Investigator  Commons, 
a  fact  he  has  been  throughout  careful  to  avoid  recognizing. 

42.  Xot  a  few  of  the  trade  unions  in  Great  Britain  are  to-day 
undermined  by  the  extent  to  which  political  municipalism  and  par- 


118  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

liamentarism  has  been  substituted  for  trade  unionism.  As  was  the 
case  in  San  Francisco,  political  unionists,  elbowing  aside  trade- 
union  unionists,  are  threatening  the  independence  of  the  union 
man's  vote  if  he  talks  about  supporting  what  party  he  pleases;  are 
trying  to  run  the  labor  machines  that  return  Councillors  and  Mem- 
bers of  Parliament. 

43-     Not  correct.     See  page  15. 

44.  Not  correct.     There  have  been  strikes  of  the  stokers  at 
the  three  private  works  here  alluded  to.     The  Sheffield  company 
makes  no  concealment  of  its  preparedness  for  a  strike,  if  incited 
from  the  outside,  though  one  would  be  folly  considering  the  good 
wages  of  the  men.     The  Newcastle  company's  men  are  at  present  in 
a  very  poor  state  of  organization.     The  incorrectness  of  Investi- 
gator Commons'  reference  to  the  South  Metropolitan  Company  is 
fully  exposed,  page  21.     Sir  Frederick  Mappin  has  certainly  illus- 
trated to  the  world  the  superiority  of  the  situation  at  the  Sheffield 
gas  works  to  any  situation  possible  under  municipal  ownership. 
The  wages  rate  has  stood  as  a  model  in  a  dispute  at  a  neighboring 
municipal  undertaking,  the  price  of  gas  is  the  lowest  in  the  king- 
dom, and  in  all  respects  the  terms  with  the  customers  and  the  mu- 
nicipality are  exemplary. 

45.  "Keform"  with  "the  knife." 

46.  Aside  from  the  section  in  the  building  trades,  where  the 
factors  of  organization  are  special,  and  in  the  Department  of  Elec- 
tricity, the  Chicago  electric  workers'  union  is  weak.     The  interests 
of  the  men  in  that  occupation  in  the  city  are  not  integral,  as  they 
must  be  in  a  union  to  be  successful.    They  can  only  be  so  when  the 
conditions  of  employment  in  the  city  department  are  the  same  as  in 
private  industry. 

47.  For    "unions"    lead    "organizations    of    municipal    em- 
ployees."    The  Manchester  tramway  men's  organization  is  now  in 
large  part  merged  in  the  Municipal  Employees'  Association,  accord- 
ing to  the  latter's  General  Secretary. 

48.  In  Chicago,  committees  of  various  unions  wait  on  the 
Council  appropriations  committees,  not  on  the  water  department 
chiefs.     In  Cleveland,  the  Central  Labor  Union's  committees,  and 
not  a  laborers'  union  committee,  consult  with  the  water  Superin- 
tendent.    In  both  cases,  the  higgling  of  the  labor  market  may  be 
affected  by  the  propinquity  of  the  vote  market.     In  Detroit,  a"  pe- 
tition of  the  Electricity  Commission's  hands  for  a  raise  in  wages 
brought,  not  a  committee  consultation,  but  the  issue  of  letters  from 
the  office  to  twenty  cities  to  ascertain  prevailing  rates. 

49.  The  joint  report,  page  156,  says  of  Indianapolis  just  the 
contrary :     "The  question  of  a  man's  politics  never  counts  in  mak- 
ing appointments."     In  the  three  municipalized  cities  mentioned, 
the  attitude  of  the  managers  investigated  was  indifference  to  all  in- 
stitutions or  individuals  not  backed  by  a  pull. 

50.  Not  correct.     The  private  undertakings  of  Xew  Haven, 
Indianapolis,  and  Atlanta  had  had  no  labor  troubles.     And  not  a 
single  word  of  testimony  was  obtained  to  show  that  the  Philadel- 
phia gas  company  ever  had  the  least  difficulty  with  any  union ;  its 
labor  conditions  were  above  the  criticisms  of  union  officials.     In 
Chicago,  the  peculiar  conditions  of  the  union  situation,  just  noted,, 
resulting  in  a  lack  of  the  necessary  study  by  union  officials  of  how 


ANALYSIS  OF  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'   REVIEW.       119 

the  companies'  workmen  might  be  organized,  was  most  probably  the 
obstacle.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Detroit  municipal  electric  works 
had  beaten  the  union  in  a  strike  and  employed-  non-unionists ;  and 
little  Norwalk's  municipal  works  had  been  made — like  the  Vatican 
— "extra  territorial"  by  the  union,  and  not  interfered  with.  In- 
vestigator Commons'  use  of  the  word  "hostile"  requires  his  own 
definition.  His  fabrications  here  plainly  were  written  for  quotation 
by  his  deluded  supporters. 

51.  Xow  defunct.       The  Municipal  Employees'  Association 
takes  in  the  unskilled  electric  workers,  but  prefers  that  the  skilled 
go  into  the  engineers. 

52.  The  President  of  the  International  Brotherhood  of  Sta- 
tionary Firemen  says  he  finds  less  difficulty  in  organizing  the  em- 
ployees of  municipal,  state,  and  Federal  buildings  in  New  York,  oE 
whom  there  are  many  hundreds,  than  the  employees  of  private  es- 
tablishments.    Public  officials  are  approachable — in  October. 

53.  The  crookedness  of  this  statement  as  made  is  apparent 
when  the  reader  knows  that  there  was  no  branch  of  this  union  found 
in  New  Haven,  Atlanta,  or  Indianapolis;  hence  no  members  in  the 
private  undertakings  in  these  places.     In  Philadelphia,  the  union's 
business  agent  said  that  the  gas  company's  wages  were  above  the 
union  scale  and  more  than  at  the  city's  water  works. 

The  presence  of  members  of  the  stationary  engineers'  and  fire- 
men's unions  in  the  municipal  works  is  a  fact  complimentary  to  the 
shrewdness  of  the  union  officials,  whose  business  it  is  to  see  that  city 
jobs  go  to  their  organizations.  A  matter  of  little  account  on  a 
small  scale,  to  be  regarded  by  citizens  with  an  indifferent  benevo- 
lence, this  might  be  the  beginning  of  a  municipal  ownership  canker, 
were  there  numerous  employees  of  many  trades  in  various  municipal 
undertakings. 

54.  It  is  almost  exclusively  a  form  of  municipal  employees7 
association. 

55.  Until  1892  the  American  street  railway  men  were  unor- 
ganized or  badly  organized.     The  number  of  members,  while  fluctu- 
ating year  by  year,  rises  considerably  by  five-year  stages.     Why  did 
Investigator  Commons  go  so  far  back  as  1902,  with  its  36,000  mem- 
bers (as  he  alleges)  ?     The  President  of  the  Amalgamated  Associa- 
tion of  Street  Railway  Employees  writes  me  that  in  1907  the  or- 
ganization had  300  unions,  with  more  than  70,000  members,  and 
that  this  year  it  has  80,000. 

56.  I  deal  somewhat  with  this  fallacious  presentation  of  the 
"minimum  wage"  idea  in  my  review,  page  61.     Observe  the  possi- 
ble deception  in  the  percentage  of  differences  if  the  reader  overlooks 
exactly  what  Investigator  Commons  tries  to  compare.     The  "mini- 
mum" given  for  the  municipality  is  the  rate  for  a  force  of  qualified 
men  established  through  influences  not  operative  in  private  employ 
—the  insistence  of  united  municipal  employees,  the  yielding  nature 
of  Councillors  handling  other  men's  money,  the  crusade  for  "a  living 
wage."     The  minimum    quoted  here  for  private  employ  is  the  rate 
paid  the  poorest  grade  of  labor  by  employers  not  particularized  and 
not  among  those  investigated  by  our  Commission.  Where  the  skilled 
union  scale  was  recognized  in  private  employ,  the  municipal  rates 
were  paid.   "Minimum  wage"  here  attempts  in  vain  a  mathematical 
comparison  of  ratios  relating  to  different  classifications  of  labor. 


120  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

The  phrase,  an  echo  of  learned  nonsense,  counts  for  nothing  except 
in  political  campaign  consumption. 

57.  Not  correct.     I  have  (page  15)  given  the  testimony  of  the 
Newcastle  Gas  Company's  chief  engineer  that  it  pays  better  wageo 
to  common  labor  than  'the  city.     The  big  Newcastle  electric  com- 
pany pays  within  a  shade  the  same  as  the  gas  company.  The  Dublin 
tramway  company  pays  as  high  wages  for  engineers,  firemen  and 
laborers  as  any  municipality  in  Ireland  for  similar  grades  of  labor. 
The  London  United  Tramways  Company,  which  is  a  suburban  line 
having  only  about  three  miles  of  track  in  London  boroughs,  pays 
an  allowable  deduction  from  the  urban  rates  of  the  County  Council, 
just  as  Brooklvn's  union  wages  are  lower  than  Manhattan's,  even 
in  skilled  organized  trades.     An  ex-employee  of  the  United  Tram- 
ways Company  recently  said  to  me  that,  considering  the  easy  work 
on  its  lines  and  the  constant  worry  and  hardships  on  the  crowded 
County  Council  lines,  he  would  regard  employment  for  the  com- 
pany preferable  at  a  decidedly  lower  percentage  in  wages.       The 
Norwich  tramway  company  pays  its  station  men  wages  equal  to  the 
municipality's  and  better  than  is  paid  in  several  neighboring  towns. 
These  assertions  of  mine  are  based  on  the  information  given  to  the 
labor  investigators  by  company  officials,  and  on  occasions  by  the 
workmen  when  interviewed  or  union  officials  or  others.     The  in- 
vestigators had  not  the  exact  and  exhaustive  data  for  a  study  of  the 
shadings  in  the  elusive  question  of  laborers'  wages,  varying,  as  they 
do,  in  private  employ,  with  the  factors  of  age,  physical  ability, 
handiness,  term  of  service,  steadiness,  etc.     On  the  other  hand,  it 
seemed  to  me  that  the  key  to  the  fact  that  in  some  cases  municipal- 
ities pay  lower  rates  than  private  employers  of  the  same  locality 
while  in  others  they  pay  much  higher  is  found  in  the  explainable 
further  fact  that  in  one  branch  of  a  municipal  undertaking  there 
are  low  wages,  while  in  another  there  are  high,  as  with  the  poorly 
paid  office  force  and  liberally  paid  works  force  at  the  Wheeling  gas 
undertaking.     Under  the  changing  administrations  of  municipal- 
ities there  is,  as  to  the  compensation  of  employees,  either  only  the 
old  established  rate,  which  continues  low  so  long  as  the  employees 
concerned  have  no  effective  pull,  or  a  liberality  resultant  on  the 
fears  or  hopes  of  the  Councillors  for  the  employees'  influence  at 
election  times,  once  the  men  are  aroused  for  united  effort.     The 
postmen  in  America  and  Great  Britain  have  obtained  amelioration 
of  slavish  conditions  only  by  ceaseless  agitation  after  being  organ- 
ized. 

58.  Not  correct.     The  general  assertion  with  which  he  opens 
this  paragraph  could  be  made  by  Investigator  Commons  only  by 
omitting  from  the  list  of  quotations  following  it  mention  of  the 
United  Gas  Improvement  Company  of  Philadelphia,  which,  he  well 
knew,  pays  better  wages  for  a  shorter  day  than  the  municipal  fire 
and  water  departments.     Other  misstatements :       Indianapolis — 
On  obtaining  the  figures  in  the  text  (page  157,  joint  report)  from 
the  company  in  writing,  I  directed  Investigator  Commons'  atten- 
tion to  the  lower  rate  given  in  the  table  drawn  up  by  him.     Ho 
never  corrected  his  table,  but  used  its  incorrect  figures  in  computing 
his  comparison  in  this  paragraph.     Allegheny — Public  "snap" ;  not 
wages.     Chicago — The  exact  facts  are  stated  in  the  two-line  footnote 
I  added  to  Investigator  Commons'  table  (or  that  of  his  students), 


ANALYSIS  OF  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'   REVIEW.       121 

page  146,  joint  report.  The  $1.75  is  paid  by  the  companies 
^only  to  a  limited  class  of  its  laborers — coal  shovelers  from  cars.  The 
municipal  lighting  works  have  not  this  class,  who  are  to  it  incapa- 
bles,  in  view  of  civil  service  qualifications.  Richmond — The  mu- 
nicipal gas  undertaking  has  its  street  mains  work  done  by  contract 
at  the  "private"  employment  rate  mentioned  (table,  page  500,  joint 
report ) .  The  philanthropist  white  man's  municipality  wears  negro 
sweatshop  clothing.  Similarly,  the  London  County  Council  has 
low  workmen's  tramway  fares  for  the  sections  of  its  lines  within 
London,  where  the  Councillors'  constituencies  live,  but  has  over- 
looked establishing  them  for  their  suburban  sections,  where  the 
workmen  are  not  among  their  constituents. 

59.  The  statistics  of  his  previous  paragraph,  worthless  through 
their  errors,  become  meaningless  as  a  gauge  of  wage  methods  when 
now  seen  as  "minimum  rates  and  not  the  average  rates  nor  the 
highest  rates."     The  maximum  rates,  which  run  high  in  private  em- 
ploy, he  has  not  quoted;  comparative  average  rates  depend  on  a 
parity  of  classifications,  here  non-existent.     While  the  mind  of  the 
honest  lay  inquirer  is  naturally  upon  a  comparison  in  general  be- 
tween the  rates  of  pay  by  the  municipalities  and  the  companies  in- 
vestigated, in  reply  the  Investigator  dwells  at  length  on  misleading 
^'minimum  rates" — and  mis-reports  them. 

By  the  "fundamental  principle  of  trade  unionism"  a  union, 
representing  workingmen,  establishes  a  scale  for  its  members,  men 
of  the  same  trade,  below  which  all  agree  not  to  work.  The  un- 
qualified for  the  occupation  do  not  become  members.  By  its  "mini- 
mum wage"  for  its  high-grade  laborers  a  municipality,  as  employer, 
establishes  a  blanket  rate  for  various  unskilled  occupations  only. 
Investigator  Commons'  confusion  of  ideas  here  arises  from  his 
habit  of  substituting  indiscriminate  general  terms  for  several  other 
terms  applicable  to  distinguishable  and  even  unlike  facts. 

60.  Ample  proof  of  the  fallacy  in  minimum  wage  compari- 
sons. 

61.  The  municipal  tramway  undertakings  we  investigated  in 
Great  Britain  represented  the  cream  of  the  industry  for  the  king- 
dom— the  heart  of  the  greatest  cities,  requiring  in  the  motormen 
and  conductors  the  highest  development  of  physique  and  skill.   The 
"fair"  comparison  instituted  by  Investigator  Commons  between  the 
County  Council  tramways  in  London  and  the  United  Company's 
lines  outside  London,  as  we  have  seen,  has  its  dark  shades  of  unfair- 
ness. 

62.  Not  correct.    The  table  of  scales  in  1906,  compared  with 
the  scales  at  the  date  of  the  organization  of  many  of  the  unions  fur- 
nished us  by  President  Marion,  of  the  International  Union,  from 
his  office  records,  and  in  possession  of  Investigator  Commons  when 
he  wrote  this  paragraph,  was  doubtless  the  latest  and  perhaps  the 
most  complete  statement  of  the  kind  in  existence.     He  had  half  a 
year  after  obtaining  it  to  submit,  through  his  force  of  students,  a 
proofsheet  copy  by  mail  to  the  officers  of  the  148  companies  referred 
to  in  the  table  for  verification  of  its  figures,  if  that  was  necessary. 

63.  Not  correct.     A  direct  contradiction  of  his  own  assertion 
of  a  fact,  page  102,  twelve  lines  from  foot  of  page.  The  "companies 
which  cannot  afford  to  risk  a  strike"  have  risked  strikes  and  "suc- 
ceeded in  destroying  the  labor  organizations" !    Besides,  see  chapter 


122  THE    CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

on  South  Metropolitan  Gas  Company,  pages  16  to  23,  for  correc- 
tions of  errors  in  every  sentence  regarding  it  in  this  paragraph. 

64.  Not  correct.    A  contradiction  of  the  statement  in  our 
joint  report  (page  497)  :  "But  high  wages  are  no  longer  found  on 
the  payrolls  [at  Richmond]  when  one  passes  to  the  grades  of  the 
more  skilled,"  and  also  of  the  statement  of  wage  increases  at  At- 
lanta set  out  in  the  footnote  to  the  table  on  page  500.     The  fact,  as 
usual,  is  that  the  company  pays  a  range  of  wages  while  the  muni- 
cipality pays  a  flat  rate. 

65.  The  same  as  for  tramway  companies,  as  I  have  explained 
in  references  57  and  61. 

66.  See  reference  46. 

67.  To  Professor  Bemis,  this  classifying  his  undertaking  after 
the  Edison  Company  and  before  the  Philadelphia  Gas  Company 
must  have  appeared  as  a  dubious  and  indefensible  compliment.   His 
bureau  does  not  put  one  dollar  into  this  channel  of  compensation 
to  labor  where  either  of  these  companies  puts  hundreds.     For  a 
possible  tabular  statement  in  parallel  columns  see  pages  147,  149, 
510,  513,  514,  516,  joint  report.  The  Edison-Commonwealth.  South 
Metropolitan,  and  United  Gas  Companies'  systems  of  welfare  work 
are  among  the  best  to  be  found  in  any  country.   All  the  municipali- 
ties mentioned  by  Investigator  Commons  are  in  this  respect  in  a 
much  poorer  class  than  these  three  companies.    Not  recognizing:  the 
methods  of  outright  compensation  beyond  wages  to  all  the  workmen 
followed  by  the  New  Haven,  Atlanta,  and  Indianapolis  companies, 
while  mentioning  the  cheap  soup-house  and  slum  reading  room 
methods  of  the  Glasgow  and  Leicester  municipal  undertakings,  from 
which  the  workmen  generally  stand  aloof,  is  a  gross  violation  of 
any  pretence  at  impartiality. 

68.  The  obvious  reason :  British  workingmen's  benefit  and  in- 
surance  is  more   frequently  practised  within   occupational  line? ; 
their  trade  unions  in  general,  like  the  exceptional  American  rail- 
way brotherhoods,  are  in  their  foremost  features  benefit  societies. 
American  wage  workers,  with  a  higher  level  of  pay  and  standard  of 
living,  take  up  with  the  whole  body  of  citizens  in  insurance  com- 
panies, as  they  do  in  building  and  loan  associations.     To  find  a. 
British  workman  insured  for  $3,000  is  as  rare  as  to  find  one  owning 
a  three-thousand-dollar  house. 

69.  Not  correct.     A  return  to  his  series  of  misrepresentations 
regarding  this  company.    This  malicious  misstatement  is  corrected, 
page  19. 

The  footnote,  page  109,  is  an  interesting  illustration  of  certain 
of  my  colleague's  vicious  habits  as  an  investigator — self-contradic- 
tion, unguarded  assertion,  indefiniteness  in  expression,  baseless  as- 
sumption of  thoroughness. 

He  brings  here  his  only  specification  in  his  charge,  that  going 
outside  the  matters  actually  investigated  by  us  is  my  "practice." 
Persistent  plodder  that  he  is,  it  may  be  depended  upon  that  to  find 
this  one  apparent  example  he  went  over  my  review  as  with  a  fine- 
tooth  comb.  And  actually  what  is  my  statement?  That  the  terms 
of  service  table  for  the  Glasgow  tramways  "gave  color"  to  this  So- 
cialist's assertions  (page  76).  The  "Clarion's"  article  reaching  me 
as  I  was  about  closing  my  review,  I  inserted  the  gist  of  it,  having 
in  mind  (1)  that  my  manuscript  was  to  go  direct  to  Investigator 


ANALYSIS  OF  INVESTIGATOR  COMMONS'   REVIEW.       12& 

Commons  for  necessary  rectification  between  ourselves,  and  (2) 
that  he  had  already,  in  pages  28-30  of  our  joint  report,  written  as 
to  the  references  required :  "The  applicant  fills  the  schedule  in  his 
own  handwriting,  stating  his  name,  address,  age,  height,  weight, 
and  whether  married  or  single.  He  gives  his  references  to  present 
and  previous  employers,  stating  the  length  of  service,  nature  of  em- 
ployment, reason  for  leaving,  and  wages,  and  whether  willing  to 
join  the  Department  Friendly  Society.  These  employers  are  then 
addressed  with  a  'private  and  confidential'  blank  schedule,  which 
they  are  asked  to  fill  in,  by  answering  the  following  questions.'' 
Then  follow  questions  intimately  personal.  "Other  persons,  not  em- 
ployers, referred  to  by  the  applicant,  are  asked  similar  questions" 
(which  are  printed  therewith).  If  the  result  of  all  this  filling  in 
by  former  employers,  etc.,  of  blanks  containing  numerous  printed 
questions  is  not  "a  written  character"  it  would  be  interesting  to 
learn  what  might  answer  the  description.  As  to  the  second  point 
made  by  the  Socialist,  the  manager's  explanation  that  lost  tickets 
"must  be  regarded  practically  as  cash"  is  in  different  words  pre- 
cisely the  Socialist's  statement.  Third  point:  "I  never  heard  it  sug- 
gested that  in  our  service  men  are  supposed  to  report  each  other  for 
neglect  of  duty."  The  Socialist  failed  here  to  give  his  evidence. 
Fourth  point,  as  to  uniforms — the  Socialist  seems  to  be  correct. 
Fifth,  as  to  mispunching  tickets — the  Socialist  is  right.  Sixth  and 
last — In  the  three  years  referred  to,  ending  May  31,  1906,  the  num- 
ber of  traffic  employees  who  left  the  Glasgow  tramways  was  1,439. 
Of  these,  526  were  dismissed  and  913  resigned.  In  the  seven  elec- 
tricity years  of  the  tramways,  1902-1908,  the  total  number  of  men 
leaving  the  traffic  service  alone  was  3,612.  Of  these,  1,226  were 
dismissed  and  2,384  resigned.  By  years,  the  number  leaving  was : 
653,  589,  555,  464,  420,  471,  460;  the  dismissals  being  194,  220, 
202,  187,  137,  127,  161;  the  resignations,  459,  369,  353,  277,  283, 
344,  299.  Average  per  year,  dismissals  and  resignations,  516  in  a 
traffic  force  averaging  2,300  men.  In  the  other  branches  of  the 
service — the  permanent  way  force  and  the  car-works  force — the  total 
that  left  through  dismissal  or  resignation  in  the  seven  years  was 
5,834;  the  grand  total  of  vacancies  (including  the  3,612  traffic 
force)  is  therefore  9,446.  The  total  number  of  men  employed  in 
all  the  tramway  branches,  by  years,  for  the  seven  years  (ending  May 
31  each  year),  was:  1902,  3,224;  1903,  3,306;  1904,  3,751;  1905, 
4,480;  1906,  5,100;  1907,  4,960;  1908,  4,580.  The  teaching  of 
these  various  sets  of  amazing  figures  is  that,  in  the  land  where  fre- 
quently a  job  descends  through  generations  the  municipality  of  Glas- 
gow loses  its  tramway  employees  at  c.  rate  equaling  the  entire  force 
every  four  years.  The  motor  men  and  conductors  go  at  the  rate  of 
all  hands  in  each  four  and  a  half  years.  These  facts,  and  the  fore- 
stalling of  unionizing  the  force  through  the  obligatory  department 
benefit  society,  wipe  out  all  possibility  of  the  street-car  men  of 
America  clamoring  for  model  Glasgow's  municipal  ownership  con- 
ditions for  themselves. 

Observe  Investigator  Commons'  devious  moves  on  this  point. 
1.  Instead  of  offering  me  privately  the  alleged  corrections  he  ob- 
tained by  writing  to  the  Glasgow  manager,  he  let  my  quotation  in 
my  review  go  in  printed  form  to  the  public,  that  he  might,  a  few 
pages  further  on,  advertise  that  he  had  "run  it  down."  2.  He 


124  THE    CIVIC   FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

drew  up  his  footnote  in  a  form  that  suggested  to  the  hasty  reader 
that  he  was  making  serious  corrections  of  the  Socialist's  statements, 
whereas  he  was  actually  on  most  counts  stating  confirmations.  3- 
Finally,  he  accounted  for  the  apparent  short  terms  among  motor- 
men  and  conductors  by  referring  to  "extension  of  service,"  while  the 
following  circumstances  indicate  that  he  was  fully  cognizant  of  the 
true  state  of  facts :  He  wrote  me  from  Glasgow,  Aug.  ,2, 1906,  while 
there  on  his  second  visit,  to  "check  up"  my  notes,  that  he  was 
"going  thoroughly  into  the  methods  of  appointment  and  promotion." 
He  prints  (page  25,  Part  II,  Vol.  II),  a  page  of  statistics  relating 
to  "appointments,  promotions,  and  dismissals,"  but  restricts  his 
figures  to  officials  having  salaries  of  $1,000  and  upward.  He  refers 
in  the  footnote  we  have  just  analyzed  to  the  further  information  he 
had  obtained  by  correspondence  with  the  Glasgow  tramways  man- 
ager for  the  purpose  of  refuting  my  suggestion  that  the  tramways 
men  had  found  their  hold  on  their  places  precarious.  He  prints 
(page  28,  Part  II,  Vol.  II),  a  table  showing  the  length  of  service 
of  the  motormen  and  conductors  in  service  Aug.  11,  1906.  That 
is,  it  is  clear  he  knew  all  about  the  almost  incredible  state  of  affairs 
in  the  quitting  and  discharging  of  men  in  the  department,  and  he 
never  gave  the  illuminating  statistics  as  I  give  them  now.  They 
would  have  killed  his  whole  deceitful  argument.  This  is  the  work 
of  the  Thorough  Investigator,  to  whom  "selecting  facts"  that  suited 
him  would  be  "impossible." 

Note  the  question  put  to  the  applicant  regarding  his  willingness 
to  join  the  Departmental  Friendly  Society.  Then  read,  page  51, 
our  joint  report  (Part  II,  Vol.  II)  :  "In  both  Glasgow  and  Liver- 
pool the  corporation  [municipality]  soon  after  municipalization, 
established  friendly  societies,  to  which  both  employees  and  the  cor- 
poration contributed.  To  the  existence  of  these  organizations,  de- 
scribed below,  the  union  officials  attribute  a  large  part  of  their 
difficulty  in  organizing  the  employees,  and  they  hold  that  the 
friendly  societies  were  designed  to  take  the  place  of  the  union." 
That  is,  had  we  municipal  ownership  spreading  in  the  United 
States,  the  Glasgow  Tramways  Friendly  Society  would  stand  as  a 
model  to  forestall  organization  of  municipal  employees  on  the  trade 
union  principle,  though  it  may  be  sure  they  would  get  together 
election  day.  Investigator  Commons  somehow  has  overlooked  the 
opportunity  in  this  instance  to  bring  into  play  the  phrases  he  used 
in  denouncing  the  South  Metropolitan  Gas  Company's  benefit 
scheme — "union  wrecking,"  "smashing  of  the  union,"  "destroying 
the  labor  organizations,"  "a  system  .  .  .  ingeniously  contrived 
to  destroy  the  .  .  .  union."  And  then  there  are  these  differ- 
ences: The  South  Metropolitan  Company  tells  its  employees  they 
are  free  to-day  to  join  any  union  whatsoever.  Its  employees  do  not 
leave  at  the  rate  of  25  per  cent  of  the  force  every  year — nor  do  10 
per  cent.  They  have  a  growing  interest  in  the  property.  They 
x^an  take  an  active  part  in  politics  whenever  they  are  so  inclined. 

It  was  an  unkind  cut  at  Professors  Bemis  and  Parsons  when 
Investigator  Commons  condemned  the  introduction  in  reviews  of 
"criticisms  not  investigated."  Newspaper  quotation  by  these  gentle- 
men in  their  summaries  is  voluminous.  Investigator  Commons' 
t)wn  quotation  from  the  Chicago  "News-Eecord"  against  the  Chi- 
cago Edison  Company  took  on  quite  a  harmless  appearance  when  its 
statements  were  corrected  by  the  company  officials. 


CONCLUSION. 


BOTH    SIDES    NOW    HEARD. 

Had  I  co-operated  on  this  Commission  with  a  man  whose  dis- 
criminating powers  in  investigation  had  been  revealed  as  a  veritable 
talent,  whose  accuracy  and  expository  skill  in  report  making  had 
betokened  an  alert  intellect  and  a  disciplined  desire  for  the  truth > 
whose  bearing  had  been  transparently  sincere  and  dealings  uni- 
formly aboveboard,  whose  contact  with  company  managers  had 
brought  him  their  respect,  and  whose  attitude  toward  myself,  pres- 
ent or  absent,  had  been  honorable,  I  would  be  distressed  at  my  work 
as  investigator  being  pronounced  by  him  as  unworthy  my  trust.  But 
as  our  case  now  at  length  stands,  with  my  side  heard,  the  reader  will 
know  it  is  not  for  me  to  take  to  the  penitential  task  of  retrospection 
and  introspection. 

Reviewing  my  entire  course  with  Professor  Commons  I  fail  to 
see  how  any  manly  nature  could  have  expected  from  me  treatment 
more  consistently  in  line  with  justice  and  even  generosity,  or  looked 
for  opportunity  more  free  to  make  the  best  of  his  claims  than  T 
accorded  to  him.  If  I  have  been  guilty  of  any  one  omission  in  th^j 
wearisome  tediousness  of  this  Commission's  work  it  has  been  that, 
yielding  to  my  earnest  hope  for  an  impossible  agreement  as  to  the 
facts  to  be  reported,  I  did  not  with  sufficient  firmness  and  sagacity 
defend  character  where  he  assailed  it,  compel  him  to  produce  proofs 
positive  where  he  had  but  his  own  affirmations,  and  cut  him  short 
where  he  penned  the  divagations  into  which  he  was  led  by  his  bias. 

My  policy  as  committeeman,  working  intimately  for  months 
with  the  Five  on  Scope  and  Plan,  and  for  half  a  year  as  one  of  the 
sub-committee  of  two  conducting  the  British  investigation,  seems 
from  the  outcome  to  have  been  satisfactory  to  my  other  colleagues. 
Where  among  them  there  was  superior  special  information  [ 
acknowledged  it;  where  there  was  no  cause  for  interference  I  held 
off ;  where  there  was  good  head-work  or  heart-work  I  believe  it  had 
promptly  my  recognition  at  every  stage. 

From  beginning  to  end  I  gave  Investigator  Commons  the  full 
play  of  his  rights,  the  precedence  expected  by  an  investigator  of  his 
experience,  and  the  unlimited  trust  due  a  man  of  honor.  My  habit 
was  not  to  insist  that  my  first  impressions  were  indubitable  facts 
but  to  review  with  him  all  matters  he  might  question,  not  to  hold  to 
what  I  had  written  for  our  joint  report  until  I  had  seen  whether 
every  sentence  expressed  the  truth  to  his  mind,  not  to  show  fight 
where  time  might  work  its  changes — my  sole  lapse  in  this  last- 
named  regard  being  on  his  abrupt  and  contemptuous  maligning  of 
a  labor  man,  against  whose  character  I  had  heard  nothing  pre- 
viously. 

If  in  his  density  he  misinterpreted  my  deferential  bearing,  my 
"apologetic"  attitude,  as  he  once  termed  it,  as  the  outcome  of  an 
excessive  temperamental  prudence  or  as  an  evidence  of  the  tribute 
due  him  in  his  possible  power  to  place  me  in  a  false  position,  to 


126  THE   CIVIC    FEDERATION   LABOR    REPORT. 

him  now  the  consequences.  If  he  imagined  that  trying  to  reach 
concordance  on  facts  in  the  report  signified  the  suppression  of  facts 
in  my  review  of  high  value  to  me  or  the  narrowing  of  my  views  to 
his  horizon,  his  was  the  stupidity.  In  giving  him  great  lengths  of 
rope  I  retained  enough  to  hang  him.  I  allowed  him  an  almost  un- 
limited field  in  which  to  follow  his  bent  to  build  up  his  cause,  he 
assumed  every  privilege  within  it,  including  that  of  making  indis- 
criminate charges,  until  finally  he  arrived  at  slandering  his  team- 
mate,  and  I  have  penned  him  up  for  the  rest  of  his  days. 

I  am  now  sure  my  theory  for  a  report  of  the  kind  we  were  to 
issue  was  the  true  one.  Proof  sheets  of  our  joint  report  should 
have  been  submitted  in  each  case  to  the  manager  of  the  undertaking 
investigated,  public  or  private,  whether  our  findings  were  favorable 
or  unfavorable.  There  is  more  truth  for  interested  readers  now  in 
regard  to  the  British  private  undertakings,  since  I  have  the  mana- 
gers' corrections,  than  Investigator  Commons,  in  his  shortsighted- 
ness, gave  in  his  ill-judged  writings  about  them.  From  this  method, 
as  followed  by  myself  (only)  in  America,  came  a  considerable 
amount  of  alteration.  Corrections  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Chicago 
Edison  Company  took  the  sting  out  of  Investigator  Commons' 
matter  quoted  from  the  "News-Record"  (page  143)  and  threw 
much  light  on  the  company's  wage  statistics  (page  146)  ;  accurate 
wage  statements  came  from  the  Indianapolis  Water  Company  (page 
157)  ;  changes  were  made  by  the  President  of  the  Atlanta  Gas 
Company.  In  none  of  these  cases  was  any  attempt  made  to  alter 
anything  but  obvious  errors.  The  managers  of  the  Cleveland  and 
South  Norwalk  municipal  undertakings,  whose  letters  on  the  mat- 
ter I  have,  had  no  suggestions  for  change  in  what  I  had  written  of 
them.  Had  Investigator  Commons  seen  to  it  that  I  had  a  copy  of 
his  attack  on  me  before  it  reached  the  public,  I  might  not  now  be 
obliged  to  finish  his  career  as  a  credible  investigator,  for  our  differ- 
ences could  perhaps  have  been  settled  in  private  before  the  Com- 
mittee of  Twenty-One.  Years  ago,  as  a  writer  on  disputable  ques- 
tions, I  was  well  convinced  of  the  merits  of  "Hear  the  other  side." 
There  are  no  managers  to-day  in  either  America  or  Great  Britain, 
to  say  that  I  have  permitted  them  to  rest  under  misrepresentation, 
and  there  are  no  managers  or  experts  to  express  astonishment  at 
my  making  claims  of  writing  "the  entire  report  as  it  stands  .  .  . 
on  the  basis  of  facts  which  I  personally  investigated" — or  at  any 
other  claims  that  they  could  call  in  question. 

I  believe  also  the  plan  of  my  review — restricting  myself  to 
salient  and  decisive  considerations — was  correct.  My  most  closely 
interested  readers,  the  wageworkers,  wanted  from  me  in  a  nutshell 
the  outcome  of  our  labor  investigation,  not  only  as  to  broad  facts 
bearing  on  employees'  welfare  and  trade  unionism,  but  also  as  to  thj 
general  influence  of  municipal  ownership  on  character  in  citizen- 
ship and  the  well  being  of  the  masses.  That  is  what  I  had  space 
to  give.  There  was  not  wanted  grandmotherly  taps  of  approbation 
alternated  with  thimble  raps  of  disapproval  on  inconsequential 

points a  report  that  looked  east,  west,  and  nowhere,  and  balanced 

everything  but  comprehensive  truths.  If  there  is  any  background  of 
principle  in  the  demand  for  a  "judicial"  report,  it  relates,  not  to  a 
mousing  over  of  endless  minutiae  of  the  evidence  in  a  sophomoric 
essay,  but  to  the  clear-cut  opinions  of  a  judge  on  the  bench,  who, 


BOTH    SIDES   NOW   HEARD.  127 

disregarding  irrelevant  matter  and  the  lesser  issues  involved  in  a 
case,  brings  out  succinctly  its  deep-lying  and  far-reaching  merits. 

If  in  my  review  I  displayed  a  consistency  with  economic  prin- 
ciples I  have"  held  for  twenty  years,  it  cannot  be  said  I  twisted  facts 
for  our  joint  report  to  support  those  principles.  Investigator  Com- 
mons himself  has  fathered  all  the  facts  in  that  report  for  all  the 
undertakings  "except  New  Haven  and  Philadelphia." 

And  if  I  allowed  him  a  free  rein  in  re-writing  Socialist  dia- 
tribes against  the  British  companies,  I  had  one  motive  among 
others  for  my  indifference  to  their  effect,  if  true,  that  I  had  from 
him  in  my  pocket  an  agreement  to  help  put  before  the  public 
through  the  Committee  of  Twenty-One  the  substance,  in  fact  most 
of  the  very  items.,  of  the  essentially  anti-municipal  report  which 
that  Committee  afterward  agreed  on.  I  was  persistent  while  in 
Madison  in  getting  that  agreement  drawn  up  on  notes  he  took  when 
he  and  I  discussed  the  question  of  the  Twenty-One's  report;  he 
told  me  later  he  was  working  over  the  matter  with  colleagues  of  his 
side,  and  I  regarded  the  question  settled  against  the  pro-munici- 
pal ists  once  they  could  admit  the  recognitions  of  private  owner- 
ship and  detail  the  unattainable  conditions  for  municipal  owner- 
ship in  America  embodied  in  the  paper. 

I  assert  that  truth  has  been  my  constant  aim — in  the  joint  re- 
port, in  my  review,  and  in  this  rejoinder'.  I  have  played  to  no  gal- 
lery, written  no  passage  for  garbled  quotation,  and  I  invite  a  fair 
review  of  all  my  work. 

I  can  meet  every  man  I  ever  came  in  contact  with  in  this  inves- 
tigation and  feel  that  I  have  done  him  no  injustice.  I  treated  Pro- 
fessor Commons  to  the  last  with  all  forbearance,  to  the  limits  of 
mercifulness.  When  a  third  party  coming  forward  to  us  both  with 
overtures  for  peace  last  year  confidently  set  out  to  induce  him  to 
eliminate  his  attack  on  me  from  his  review,  even  after  it  had  ap- 
peared in  the  newspapers,  I  entertained  the  proposal.  But  to  be 
stubbornly  vengeful  has  been  his  choice,  and  continuing  to  show 
him  a  consideration  persistently  despised  would  be  fatuous. 

I  would  have  -welcomed  a  fine  reply  to  my  review  by  my  oppo- 
nent. Lucid  reasoning  on  a  high  plane,  keen  insight  into  principles 
I  might  have  seen  but  dimly,  the  short  cut  to  logical  results  I  had 
overlooked,  original  views  of  social  obligations,  the  gratifying  sur- 
prise of  a  defeat  at  points  where  I  had  been  too  sure,  a  dexterous 
seizure  of  unconscious  concessions  had  I  made  them,  a  literary 
dress  above  an  almshouse  inventory — on  such  features  I  would  have 
sent  him  my  hearty  congratulations. 

However  much  I  was  stung  by  his  allusions  to  myself  and  as- 
tonished at  his  reckless  statements  as  to  "indorsement"  of  municipal 
ownership  in  Glasgow  by  its  opponents,  and  the  like  falsifying  pas- 
sages that  stud  his  production,  the  lasting  and  deepest  effects  on 
me  of  reading  his  review  were  disappointment  at  the  indignity  he 
had  committed  on  the  Commission  and  regret  at  the  retribution  he 
had  invited  upon  himself.  The  bewilderment  he  exhibited  as  to  the 
fundamental  lessons  to  be  adduced  from  our  extended  observations, 
and  his  meanderings  from  incoherent  imitations  of  the  convention- 
alities of  professorial  writing  to  taxing  me  with  the  very  sins 
against  fairness  that  he  himself  was  committing,  with  his  display  of 


128  THE   CIVIC    FEDERATION    LABOR    REPORT. 

resentment  at  my  presenting  a  course  of  reasoning  he  could  not  an- 
swer, evoked  my  profound  sympathy  for  his  pettiness  in  mind,  heart 
and  spirit. 

If  as  one  of  the  coterie  of  college  Socialists — he  is  a  member 
of  the  New  York  "X"  Club,  a  panegyrist  of  the  Fabians,  an  ac- 
cepted fellow  of  the  semi-Socialist  secretaries  who  insinuate  them- 
selves into  half -charity,  half-radical  societies — he  aimed  to  destroy 
another  labor  representative  who  refuses  to  de-Americanize  himself 
by  adopting  their  misplaced  old-world  communistic  creed,  he  may 
now  contemplate  a  ruin  of  closer  personal  interest  to  himself.  In 
striking  back  at  him  I  do  duty,  on  behalf  of  all  trade  unionist  lead- 
ers, against  the  gang  who  would  "convert  them  or  annihilate  them/' 

In  his  attack  on  my  integrity  as  an  investigator,  as  also  in  his 
attacks  on  both  the  British  and  American  companies  as  honorable 
business  agencies,  he  produced  not  a  written  or  printed  line  to  sup- 
port his  allegations.  But  for  every  charge  of  any  kind  I  herein 
make  against  him  I  have  the  clinching  documentary  evidence. 

Before  I  was  on  hand  to  watch  him,  he  was  in  the  habit  of  is- 
suing without  check  the  port  of  literature  on  which  much  municipal 
ownership  propaganda  depended.  After  he  got  away  from  my  im- 
mediate supervision  and  investigated  on  his  own  hook  and  penned 
his  review,  he  fell  into  his  old  inveterate  habits  of  unreason  and 
untruth. 

While  he  has  for  years  allowed  to  be  well  advertised  his  side 
of  his  woes  as  a  reformer  in  college  life,  in  reviewing  his  course  on 
this  Commission  in  all  charity,  it  cannot  but  recur  to  the  reader 
that  there  may  be  other  explanations  than  his  own  why  he  was 
dropped  from  college  professorships  twice. 

Let  no  one  imagine  that  I  write  for  reinstatement  in  any  circle 
of  men  to  gain  any  material  thing  within  their  gift  to  my  personal 
advantage.  With  the  "public"  and  "employers' "  groups  of  the 
Civic  Federation  possessed  of  this  reply  to  the  overt  assault  on  the 
good  faith  of  one  of  the  labor  representatives  under  their  eye  in 
the  municipal  investigation,  and  a  covert  assault  on  his  honor,  I 
step  back  into  the  ranks  of  organized  labor,  my  business  writh  the 
other  groups  done  and  my  inclination  to  join  in  public  service  with 
them  gone. 


UNIVERSIT 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

Fine  schedule:  25  cents  on  first  day  overdue 

50  cents  on  fourth  day  overdue 
One  dollar  on  seventh  day  overdue. 


APR  22  1947 


LD  21-100m-12,'46(A2012sl6)4120 


jRARY 


